(10-29-2021 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-29-2021 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-29-2021 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-29-2021 08:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (10-29-2021 05:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Does it? This is the only link I saw in the memo related to Loudon:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local...y/2708185/
While it is the same area, it specifically references issues at a meeting on transgender issues, and not this cover up you’re talking about. Perhaps the father was at this meeting and contributed to the dialogue, but it doesn’t seem to be that the example you reference focuses on people being mad about a cover up.
That meeting covered transgender issues. The father of the girl was at this meeting and addressed the policy --- and was restrained and (iirc) arrested at the meeting.
The issues behind the rape is that a guy who was wearing a skirt accessed the girl's restroom and the rape occurred in the restroom.
The school district superintendent knew of the rape the next day. At the June 22 school board meeting at which the father was arrested, he said ""We don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms."
My apologies that my sentence structure was incorrect. That incident that was glossed over in the meme has some very serious backstory, of which I concluded as a matter. I can see where it would seem that I was noting that the memo included that horrendous backstory. I merely was including the backstory.
Garland plucked that violent incident out and left the backstory bereft in the memo. In fact, in the bolded, he admitted he didnt have a fing clue as to the backstory.
Which, makes the inclusion even more grotesque and even more visible as Garland doing the NSBA a quick turnaround 'Ill write whaever the fk you want me to as a political favor' act.
Even without that very major backstory, the entire structure of the Garland memo gets slimier and slimier. I noted the very major issues within a day or two if him issuing it. His later testimony that neither he, nor his staff, did any checks on the cited items, and that the memo was issued based on the now retracted NSBA letter just leads to it being mroe shallow than my original view.
The later facts surrounding the June 22 arrest of the father being one of the cited examples leads me even more down that path of what a craven, shallow, political act the memo is/was.
Garland is a shitbird of the first order for this.
I don’t remember Garland’s memo referencing any specific incident. Did the DOJ release a second memo?
The memo I was referencing was the NSBA one that linked to an article about the school board meeting in Loudon.
Garland's memo cited a broad pattern, which he has testified under oath as being specifically based on and referring specifically to the instances in the NSBA letter.
If you look at the full Cruz/Garland interaction you will understand that relationship. And you will understand that both parties acknowledge that relationship.
The NSBA item on Loudon is the June 22 meeting that I note above, and that OO has given a further link to above.
Yeah, but it looks like that meeting also focused more broadly on transgender issues - it wasn’t focused solely on the reported assaults based on the article the NSBA cited. That article even reports that death threats were received in the spring - were those related to the assault cover up?
Your making a leap that may not be there regarding the NSBA and Garland.
The instance of disruption was the arrest of Smith, the father. That is the only thing that meeting is known in the news for.
That video of the arrest went viral in late June with tens of millions of views.
Your story is now that 'the general story' is that that specific meeting isnt being cited for the disruption by Smith, and his rather violent scuffle with police and arrest? Seriously? Do you understand that at the meeting on transgender issues, the father of the daughter whom was raped in the girl's bathroom by a guy wearing a skirt? Seems pretty much on point to even your gross generalization attempt above.
I am very intrigued on how apparently you now claim that a meeting that was fairly well known within days for the violence (and yes, Smith *did* threaten violence against the shitbirds who both enabled the rape of his daughter, and at the same meeting denied (lied about) knowing about it.)
But it was other items at the meeting that arent known or arent rather as infamous as the video, or arent the subject of viral videos for the threat of violence and the violent arrest of the father that occurred, that occurred at the VERY SAME meeting that are instead the basis for inclusion in the NSBA memo listing harrassing and violent acts.
Lad, please dont take us for utter morons.
Quote:Your making a leap that may not be there regarding the NSBA and Garland.
Only if you ignore Garland's own testimony to the House of Representatives in response to Jim Jordan a week or so ago.
In response to a question of what his basis was for the memo, Garland specifically and solely pointed to the NSBA letter. I guess now we should ignore that?
Im only 'making a leap' that Garland himself made in testimony earlier.
In fact, Im only 'making a leap' that Garland himself impliedly makes in his 'defense' of his memo and the basis in NSBA letter in the set-to with Cruz included above.
Wow, Im impressed with the damage control effort you are undertaking here.