
<p>Remember when Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a letter to the FBI to take actions against school parent protestors, who he tied to a growing threat of terrorism? And remember all those claims that the Department of Justice operates independently of the White House? It has now all been revealed as &#8230; surprise, surprise &#8230;political malarky.</p>



<p>In October 2021, Garland issued a memo mobilizing the FBI and U.S. Attorneys to address what he described as a “disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence” against school board officials. The directive followed a letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to the White House, which controversially likened some parental protests to “domestic terrorism.” Garland insisted that the DOJ acted independently and was focused solely on perceived threats, not on silencing dissent. But newly released emails put the lie to his claim.</p>



<p>According to documents obtained by America First Legal, DOJ lawyers expressed serious reservations about the legal basis for federal intervention. One internal email from October 3, 2021, stated that “almost all of the language being used (by protesting parents) is protected by the First Amendment,” and that the cited behavior “<strong>cannot </strong>(my emphasis) be reached by federal law”. Another DOJ attorney noted that local law enforcement could handle any disruptions through trespassing or disturbing-the-peace statutes— “<strong>nothing remotely federal”</strong> (my emphasis).</p>



<p>Yet despite these warnings, the DOJ pressed forward. Why?</p>



<p>The answer lies in a recently released public email from Kevin Chambers, an aide to the deputy attorney general, dated October 1, 2021. In it, Chambers wrote: “We’re aware; the challenge here is finding a federal hook. But <strong>WH has been in touch</strong> (my emphasis) about whether we can assist in some form or fashion”. That single line is a bombshell. It suggests that the White House was actively involved in pushing the DOJ to take action &#8211; even as DOJ lawyers could not find legal justification for such action.</p>



<p>This revelation directly contradicts Garland’s repeated claims that the DOJ was not influenced by political pressure. It also undermines President Biden’s assurances that his administration respects the often alleged independence of the Justice Department. The phrase “federal hook” implies a search for any plausible legal angle to justify federal involvement &#8211; not because the law demanded it, but because the White House wanted it.</p>



<p>The implications are profound. First, it raises serious constitutional concerns. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech and peaceful assembly—even if that speech is loud, angry, or unpopular. The internal DOJ emails show that career attorneys recognized this and cautioned against federal overreach. But those voices were seemingly ignored under pressure from the Biden White House.</p>



<p>Second, it gives evidence to my oft stated opinion that the DOJ is not independent of the White House – and never was. ; A President hires the AG and can fire the AG at any time. ; A President can order investigations and can close them. ; ; When a President is sued, it is the DOJ that takes up his case – as we have seen in the many suits filed by Democrat interests against President Trump.</p>



<p>Attorney General Eric Holder defended his boss, President Obama, in the “Fast and Furious” case by refusing to turn over evidence and testify. It earned Holder a Contempt of Congress – the only AG in American History to receive one. President Kennedy put his brother, Bobby, in as AG for the sole purpose of covering his butt. FDR’s attorney general supported the unconstitutional incarceration of Japanese Americans. President Nixon’s AG, John Mitchell, actually conspired to protect Nixon in the Watergate Scandal – earning him a jail sentence. The newly revealed coordination between the DOJ and the White House shows that even the Biden administration did not believe in its own narrative of an independent DOJ.</p>



<p>Third, it casts doubt on the narrative that the Garland memo was a routine law enforcement response. Critics have long argued that the memo was designed to chill dissent and intimidate parents who were speaking out against school policies on COVID-19, critical race theory, and gender identity. The fact that the DOJ was “looking for” a federal hook—despite knowing that most of the cited behavior was constitutionally protected—lends credence to those concerns.</p>



<p>Fourth. This also reveals just how politically involved the various school unions are. This all was triggered by letters and pressure from NSBA and the American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who was a member of the leadership team of the Democratic National Committee at the time.</p>



<p>Finally, it raises questions about accountability. If the DOJ acted under political pressure, who will be held responsible? Will there be congressional hearings? Will the Inspector General investigate? And will the Biden administration be made to explain the contradiction (lies) between its public statements and the private communications now coming to light?</p>



<p>In a democracy, dissent is not a threat. It is a right. Parents have every reason to be involved in their children’s education, and they should not be treated as potential criminals for doing so. The newly revealed emails show that even DOJ lawyers understood this. The fact that their concerns were overridden suggests a dangerous willingness to bend the law to fit a political agenda by Garland.</p>



<p>This is not just a policy misstep. It is political corruption at the highest levels. The folks behind this fiasco &#8212; and the lies – should be held accountable. Or will this be another bombshell revelation against Democrats that the legacy press ignores or plays down? Probably.</p>



<p>So there ‘tis.</p>

Biden ordered DOJ to go after school parents … now a proven fact
