What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Merrick Garland (1 Viewer)

You're right, we probably can't have a conversation because you don't really have a strong position and you know it.  
My position is that Garland didn't utter the words "domestic terrorism" in his statement and they can't be found in the official DOJ comments on these activities either.  I suspect this fear mongering came from social media of some sort and has caught fire.  Feel free to prove any of that incorrect and we can talk.  Otherwise, I'll continue with the position that it's typical misinformation designed to garner clicks on media outlets designed to farm your attention free of charge.  :shrug:  

We'll just put your complete mischaracterization of what's going on in Texas to the side since it has nothing at all to do with this incident (in topic or circumstance).  Or if you like, we can discuss it in the thread where it is being discussed.

 
The threat of being labeled a domestic terrorist is enough of a deterrent to chill parents 1st Amendment rights.  Do you know what would happen if a parent at a school board meeting was actually labeled a domestic terrorist by the DOJ?  For starters, their assets would be frozen until a proper investigations was done.

Seizure of assets - Sec. 806:  Section 806 amended the civil asset forfeiture statute to authorize the government to seize and forfeit:  all assets, foreign or domestic (i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization or (ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States or their property or (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.  

Then I'm sure that individuals employer would be ok with the DOJ going through that persons employment records.  Interviews with friends, family, neighbors.  Legal fees to defend the charge.  You seem like a smart guy in your posts.  But you are being willfully obtuse here.  Nobody wants to put themselves through that.  




So we let people threaten violence and death - with no consequences?  How does that seem like a good idea?

 
So we let people threaten violence and death - with no consequences?  How does that seem like a good idea?
To be fair, if the government threatened to nuke my house, that too would be something that would "chill" my 1st Amendment rights.  The problem, of course, is neither has happened outside of social media circles.

 
Do you know the story behind why he is upset?  

Maybe he could have handled it better, but that's asking a lot from someone during an emotional issue.

Instead this father was used as a justification to get the DOJ involved in school board matters.  But apparently Garland didn't even know about the case. 

The police handled the situation, but the DOJ and school board association don't get to play it both ways.  If it's a state issue, leave it there.  
Sure they can. 

 
So we let people threaten violence and death - with no consequences?  How does that seem like a good idea?


This is a matter for local law enforcement.  The DOJ calling for the FBI to intervene is overreach when the local authorities are equipped to handle the situation.  

 
Really enjoying the lefts disingenuous position of "Well MG never said the actual words Domestic Terrorism so everything is just peachy".  (A standard they never apply to Trump btw).

If the School Board Association calls complaining parents domestic terrorists and asks for FBI help - and they then send the FBI - then yes, there's a at least a measure of agreement with the smear.

It's the same play they're running everywhere.

Step 1: Manufacture a crisis.

Step 2: Do whatever the hell you want.

Step 3: Defend your actions because . . . crisis.

 
My position is that Garland didn't utter the words "domestic terrorism" in his statement and they can't be found in the official DOJ comments on these activities either.  I suspect this fear mongering came from social media of some sort and has caught fire.  Feel free to prove any of that incorrect and we can talk.  Otherwise, I'll continue with the position that it's typical misinformation designed to garner clicks on media outlets designed to farm your attention free of charge.  :shrug:  

We'll just put your complete mischaracterization of what's going on in Texas to the side since it has nothing at all to do with this incident (in topic or circumstance).  Or if you like, we can discuss it in the thread where it is being discussed.


No, the statement was in the NSBA letter to the DOJ.  Page 2, Paragraph 3, line 1.

https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf

"As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The DOJ then followed up with this language in their memo:

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate."  

Thus, part of the DOJs prosecution tactics, includes but is not limited to prosecuting people as domestic terrorists.  They were already labeled as such by the NSBA to get the Federal Government to intervene in a local jurisdictional matter.  That Garland didn't use the phrase in his memo is not relevant when you're discussing the chill/deterrent effects that said memo has on the common citizen.  

There really isn't much to talk about here.  Your position is full of strawman arguments.

 
The FBI isn't going to do anything to any parent that speaks up at a school board meeting. You people are nuts.

The FBI wil only get involved if there are serious threats of harm or violence

 
No, the statement was in the NSBA letter to the DOJ.  Page 2, Paragraph 3, line 1.

https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf

"As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The DOJ then followed up with this language in their memo:

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate."  

Thus, part of the DOJs prosecution tactics, includes but is not limited to prosecuting people as domestic terrorists.  They were already labeled as such by the NSBA to get the Federal Government to intervene in a local jurisdictional matter.  That Garland didn't use the phrase in his memo is not relevant when you're discussing the chill/deterrent effects that said memo has on the common citizen.  

There really isn't much to talk about here.  Your position is full of strawman arguments.


Speaking of strawmen - how many prosecutions has the DOJ undertaken against unruly parents?

 
No, the statement was in the NSBA letter to the DOJ.  Page 2, Paragraph 3, line 1.

https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf

"As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The DOJ then followed up with this language in their memo:

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate."  

Thus, part of the DOJs prosecution tactics, includes but is not limited to prosecuting people as domestic terrorists.  They were already labeled as such by the NSBA to get the Federal Government to intervene in a local jurisdictional matter.  That Garland didn't use the phrase in his memo is not relevant when you're discussing the chill/deterrent effects that said memo has on the common citizen.  

There really isn't much to talk about here.  Your position is full of strawman arguments.


And Garland told congress yesterday that they based their response on the letter from the school districts and that they took the assertions in the letter at face value.

 
Really enjoying the lefts disingenuous position of "Well MG never said the actual words Domestic Terrorism so everything is just peachy".  (A standard they never apply to Trump btw).

If the School Board Association calls complaining parents domestic terrorists and asks for FBI help - and they then send the FBI - then yes, there's a at least a measure of agreement with the smear.

It's the same play they're running everywhere.

Step 1: Manufacture a crisis.

Step 2: Do whatever the hell you want.

Step 3: Defend your actions because . . . crisis.


No, the statement was in the NSBA letter to the DOJ.  Page 2, Paragraph 3, line 1.

https://nsba.org/-/media/NSBA/File/nsba-letter-to-president-biden-concerning-threats-to-public-schools-and-school-board-members-92921.pdf

"As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."

The DOJ then followed up with this language in their memo:

https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate."  

Thus, part of the DOJs prosecution tactics, includes but is not limited to prosecuting people as domestic terrorists.  They were already labeled as such by the NSBA to get the Federal Government to intervene in a local jurisdictional matter.  That Garland didn't use the phrase in his memo is not relevant when you're discussing the chill/deterrent effects that said memo has on the common citizen.  

There really isn't much to talk about here.  Your position is full of strawman arguments.
Initially FG asked what the DOJ has done.  The reply was that they labeled these acts "domestic terrorism".  They did not.  They DID agree they would support the National School Board Association (where local law enforcement wasn't equipped) in their concerns and the NSBA did use the terminology.  At best we're bending over backwards to make the connection.  So far, this continues to be, as I suspected, something crafted on social media and lapped up by many.  NB, your knife cuts both ways....shouldn't you be "looking into the DOJ's heart to see what they really meant"?  Something not afforded to the DOJ here apparently even though all they've said is that they will support the NSBA.  

The one thing I do agree with in this whole thing is the bold.  That's their job.  When they see the acts they deem domestic terrorism they should investigate and prosecute accordingly.  I'm not sure why that's a problem for you two or anyone else here OR why you label their execution of the law as "tactics".  To be clear, I think it's fine to tell people they are treading on thin ice with their actions and that they need to be careful because if they go too far it could be major problems for them.  If that "cools" them, that's good.  To be clearer, if there's ever a time that they overreach, that action should be condemned.  The problem, at this moment, you both have is there has been no overreach yet.  You're just assuming it's going to happen...again, a byproduct of social media, I'm sure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking of strawmen - how many prosecutions has the DOJ undertaken against unruly parents?


The DOJ has no legal authority to prosecute unruly parents.  School board meetings are governed by State and not Federal law.  That's why the Garland memo is so ridiculous because the DOJ/FBI have no jurisdiction act here.  Garland knows it which is why he is attempting to exert control of the situation through local law enforcement.  The whole point I'm trying to make is the DOJ doesn't have to prosecute anybody for their actions.  There mere threat of prosecution is enough to chill people from exercising their rights.  If someone sticks a gun in your face and says "give me your money or I'll shoot", the mere threat of being shot is enough to make you act even though the person didn't actually shoot you.

 
Yes. DOJ is definitely trying to “chill” people from making death threats and threats of violence. 
 

I hope it works. 


There is a saying our professor from our first year of law school told us, "It's better to let a guilty man go free than put an innocent man behind bars."  Same principle here.    

 
There is a saying our professor from our first year of law school told us, "It's better to let a guilty man go free than put an innocent man behind bars."  Same principle here.    
I'd be shocked if any self-respecting law school professor offered that up to any 1L class as a truism.

Its something you would find in a middle school Social Studies class debate.  No 1st year professor would allow any law student to get away with offering that up as an absolute, let alone making that assertion themselves.

 
The NSBA sent a "we f'd up" letter to it's members. 

"However, there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter."

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/10/NSBA-Letter.jpg

Sen. Josh Hawley has requested that Merrick Garland resign.

“Merrick Garland mobilized the FBI to intimidate parents without legal basis and, we now know, premised on misinformation he didn’t bother to verify. It was a dangerous abuse of authority that has badly compromised the Justice Dept’s integrity and Garland’s. He should resign,”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/hawley-calls-merrick-garland-resign-154322066.html

But hey, some people in here think this is ok.  

 


Sure, its a philosophical discussion - not a truism, or absolute.

From the abstract: "It is presupposed that any ratio presented should not be taken to indicate that it is worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty one."

It also presupposes the intent of a criminal justice system.  If, for example, a society chooses to adopt a criminal justice system primarily as a means of deterrence, then it stands to reason that system might prefer that an innocent person be convicted rather than a guilty person go free.

And, law school, assuming you have been, is where professors teach students to think in terms of multiple view points, and not absolutes.  Its why the cases you read in text books are often 4-3, or 5-4, decisions - where sharp legal minds disagree on a particular legal principles.  You don't find many 9-0 (or 7-0) decisions in law school text books.

So, a law school professor is likely to offer the statement up for discussion, where students could debate the merits of the policy, while understanding that there are (almost) always legitimate arguments on either side of a policy.

 
Sure, its a philosophical discussion - not a truism, or absolute.

From the abstract: "It is presupposed that any ratio presented should not be taken to indicate that it is worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty one."

It also presupposes the intent of a criminal justice system.  If, for example, a society chooses to adopt a criminal justice system primarily as a means of deterrence, then it stands to reason that system might prefer that an innocent person be convicted rather than a guilty person go free.

And, law school, assuming you have been, is where professors teach students to think in terms of multiple view points, and not absolutes.  Its why the cases you read in text books are often 4-3, or 5-4, decisions - where sharp legal minds disagree on a particular legal principles.  You don't find many 9-0 (or 7-0) decisions in law school text books.

So, a law school professor is likely to offer the statement up for discussion, where students could debate the merits of the policy, while understanding that there are (almost) always legitimate arguments on either side of a policy.


It's used when discussing burden of proof and why criminal burdens are higher.

 
You mean when he was defending the use of nazi salutes?  Not sure Cruz’s little rant was a good depiction of anything civil or substantive that helps us.  But given we have people supporting  the whole lets go brandon thing, nothing is surprising about politics anymore.
Someone did a Nazi salute.  Call in the FBI!!!!

Are you serious?   I guess you were one that approved of Obama weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to go after political opponents?  

 
Someone did a Nazi salute.  Call in the FBI!!!!

Are you serious?   I guess you were one that approved of Obama weaponizing the DOJ and IRS to go after political opponents?  
Call in the FBI...no...though, the FBI isn't quite investigating those things either as has been pointed out already in this thread.

Not sure why even bringing up Obama or a false accusation about him weaponizing the DOJ and IRS...we have been over that before and the IG report shows that to be a bogus claim

Next comes the laughing reaction and no real response.  Same as ever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Call in the FBI...no...though, the FBI isn't quite investigating those things either as has been pointed out already in this thread.
The FBI doesn't typically investigate people for exercising their first amendment rights.  Or at least, they don't do that any more.  Or at least, they're not supposed to.  

Actually, the FBI has a pretty bad track record on free speech issues.  I hope we don't go back to the bad old days of Hoover.

So good for Ted Cruz.

 
So we let people threaten violence and death - with no consequences?  How does that seem like a good idea?


There was no evidence of widespread threats or actual violence occurring.  There are thousands and thousands of death threats and the DOJ does not make a show of force to deter speech. They only picked their pet issue to choose to step in and scare people.  It is a disgrace the DOJ is used as a political tool to attack free speech of the opposition. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still waiting on that list of school districts where the FBI had been deployed to.  We have a #### ton of incidents that are reported locally, on daily basis, of threats against school board members and parents getting in fights with each other etc.  It's incredibly disheartening, but I haven't seen the first FBI agent "mobilized" to "help".  Of course I am speaking of Central Florida...not sure maybe they are in south/north Florida or the panhandle?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was no evidence of widespread threats 
This part certainly isn’t true. 
 

This whole issue is just meat for the conservative base, but I suspect it’s a loser for the majority of Americans. School board members  getting yelled at, called “traitors”, told “we’ll get you!”?? I’m glad the FBI is getting involved. Who the hell knows what these loonies are thinking? 

 
This part certainly isn’t true. 
 

This whole issue is just meat for the conservative base, but I suspect it’s a loser for the majority of Americans. School board members  getting yelled at, called “traitors”, told “we’ll get you!”?? I’m glad the FBI is getting involved. Who the hell knows what these loonies are thinking? 
They aren't....not in any meaningful way anyway.

 
You mean when he was defending the use of nazi salutes?  Not sure Cruz’s little rant was a good depiction of anything civil or substantive that helps us.  
When you heard that, did you think the parent doing a Nazi salute was proclaiming his love for Nazis or he/she/zer was saying the school board members were Nazis and doing so in an ironic salute? I assumed the latter, but I really can't tell where your head is at in this post.

Your last sentence was a deflection, so I omitted it.

 
When you heard that, did you think the parent doing a Nazi salute was proclaiming his love for Nazis or he/she/zer was saying the school board members were Nazis and doing so in an ironic salute? I assumed the latter, but I really can't tell where your head is at in this post.
I don't know. But if the parent did the Nazi salute and then followed it up with death threats, I sure as hell would want the authorities to look into it.

 
When you heard that, did you think the parent doing a Nazi salute was proclaiming his love for Nazis or he/she/zer was saying the school board members were Nazis and doing so in an ironic salute? I assumed the latter, but I really can't tell where your head is at in this post.

Your last sentence was a deflection, so I omitted it.
I imagine it would have been easier for Ted to not even bring it up to sound as if he is defending such things.

 
I imagine it would have been easier for Ted to not even bring it up to sound as if he is defending such things.
Civil speech that everybody already agrees with doesn't need defending.  That's why nearly all first amendment case law involves speech that's either intemperate ("Bong Hits for Jesus" and "The Potty-Mouthed Cheerleader" being two of the most recent) or wildly unpopular (Tinker and Skokie).

Edit: Actually, the speech at issue in Tinker was more like "highly contentious" as opposed to "wildly unpopular," but you get the point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Civil speech that everybody already agrees with doesn't need defending.  That's why nearly all first amendment case law involves speech that's either intemperate ("Bong Hits for Jesus" and "The Potty-Mouthed Cheerleader" being two of the most recent) or wildly unpopular (Tinker and Skokie).
Sure...just think its a foolish look for Ted.  And his rant would have been better served without it.

Also...Ted talking about civil speech is always pretty funny as one of the more uncivil members of congress with some of his own antics.

The interesting thing seems still to focus on what is actually being done...vs what people like Ted Cruz are claiming the DOJ and Garland are doing.

 
Also...Ted talking about civil speech is always pretty funny as one of the more uncivil members of congress with some of his own antics.
So, the guy who is himself uncivil is defending the right of somebody else to engage in uncivil speech.

How is that funny or in any way remarkable?

 
I understand that people just want to bash Ted Cruz a little.  He's kind of a ridiculous figure.  But in this particular case, his position enjoys near-unanimous support among every Supreme Court justice who has served in my lifetime.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top