The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the author.
WASHINGTON, DC- Even prior to the January 6 “insurrection,” during the summer of violent BLM and Antifa riots, Democrats were focused not on domestic terrorism coming from the left, but claiming the riots which consumed the nation for much of the summer of 2020 were coming from so-called “right wing militia groups” and “white nationalists,” all of course with no proof.
Last week, the Department of Justice informed a Senate committee that the department would be forming a “Domestic Terror Unit” comprised of a select group of attorneys, citing the January 6 incident which some claim was helped in no small part by that same Department of Justice (FBI).
How many of those “domestic terrorists” are from Black Lives Matter and Antifa is unknown, but with far-left idealogue Merrick Garland now running the show, it probably varies between slim and none.
One DOJ official, who was unable to define what exactly constitutes a crime that falls under “domestic terrorism,” the official said the unit would invoke a “criminal code” which allows for enhanced sentences for crimes defined as “terror offenses.”
There are of course reasons to be concerned about the authenticity of the federal government’s efforts against what they call a “persistent and evolving” threat, especially given their apparent lack of interest in so-called domestic terrorism coming from the left side of the political spectrum.
Even more so, the lack of specific definitions of what falls under “domestic terrorism,” leaving room for “interpretation” by a government apparently hell-bent on punishing its detractors, is extremely concerning.
Under the National Defense Authorization Act’s definition of “domestic terrorism,” it refers to “unlawful use or threat of force of violence in furtherance of ideological agendas” in addressing political or anti-government extremism, The Federalist notes.
Furthermore most definitions of such conduct require violence as an important component.
That doesn’t seem to matter to the Department of Justice, since the title of “domestic terrorists” has been implied of parents who object to what their children are being taught who vocalize those objections at school board meetings.
The label has also been applied to those who protested at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
For example last July, one of the non-violent participants in the Capitol trespass, Paul Hodgkins, pleaded guilty to “obstruction of an official proceeding.
Hodgkins, who had no prior criminal record, was sentenced to eight months in jail. During sentencing, the trial judge, who is supposed to be an unbiased, independent jurist, referred to Hodgkins as one of a number of “terrorists” who trespassed on the US Capitol grounds and lumped him in with others who did in fact commit acts of violence.
Judge Randolph Moss, clearly a left-wing ideologue ranted left and right about “an assault on democracy, and the so-called “rebellious symbolism” Hodgkins displayed by raising a Trump flag.
As noted by The Federalist, Moss was unable to explain how Hodgkins’ “assault on democracy” by roaming the Senate floor for 22 minutes fomented violence.
Moss in fact admitted that Hodgkins’ punishment wasn’t about individual guilt, but a bizarre, unreasonable, and nonsensical idea of “balanced justice”:
“The court here had to consider both what I think are the extremely damaging events that occurred that day but also who Mr. Hodgkins is as an individual. And as I think is reflected by the sentencing I imposed, I tried to strike that balance.”
By Moss’s definition, merely being within a certain geographical area where terrorists whose political leanings are the same or similar to others in that area is bizarre.
It would be like having had Muslims who were caught in the area of the World Trade Center after Islamic jihadists slammed two aircraft into the twin towers. who happened to be protesting at the same time, being arrested for the terrorist acts.
In other words, it makes no sense.
What makes Moss’s decision even more egregious is the fact that despite what he said, neither the prosecution nor Moss brought forth a sentencing enhancement based on the existing code of terror offenses raised by the DOJ last week.
The reason? Hodgkins’ crime isn’t on the list.
Moss defined it as terrorism because he said it was, not that the law said it was. And that is a problem.
Judges are not there to make up the law. They are there to adjudicate laws. In the case of Moss, he was apparently personally offended by Hodgkins showing up at the US Capitol to exercise his First Amendment rights, so he was going to make sure he paid for it.
Hodgkins of course isn’t the only Capitol defendant to be excessively punished because a judge was personally put off by their conduct.
The infamous Qanon shaman, “Chewbacca guy” as Tucker Carlson calls him was held in solitary confinement for months as Judge Royce Lamberth refused to grant him bail. Jacob Chansely pleaded guilty in November to yet another minor charge, t he same one as Hodgkins, yet somehow received a 41-month prison sentence, The Federalist said.
Lambert once again used his own personal opinion and sense of morality (and politics) while admitting that Chansely committed no violent crime inside the Capitol.
There is a video of Chansely calmly walking onto the floor of the Senate, accompanied by a US Capitol police officer. He was certainly not there to commit any kind of “insurrection.”
However that mattered not to Lambert, noting the “need to deter others especially in cases of domestic terrorism.” Think about this for a minute.
People who attacked the Secret Service outside the White House in May 2020, an act which forced President Trump and his family to seek refuge in the underground bunker, received the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, if anything.
Yet someone who walked calmly onto the floor of the Senate is accused of “domestic terrorism.”
Our justice system is not designed to “act as a deterrent” for actors who might in the future decide to do something. Justice is supposed to be blind and examine the facts and circumstances of each particular case, and render a decision without bias or prejudice.
Neither Moss nor Lambert did that. They let their own personal feelings of what constitutes “domestic terrorism” sway their decisions.
As The Federalist author wrote:
By punishing a non-terrorist more harshly than necessary to ‘deter others,’ our bloodthirsty DOJ showed a willingness to weaponize federal convictions that deplete a defendant’s civil rights just to make an example out of him.
The DOJ is clearly out of control in what they define as signs of domestic terrorists lurking about America.
For example, last August in the lead-up to the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security issued alerts to local police departments, warning them to be wary of possible terrorist threats.
Among those who were identified as being threats were people who had “opposition to COVID measures, or associated with “conspiracy theories on perceived election fraud.”
So clearly, since people in both of those camps tend to be conservative Republicans, DHS was warning police that Republicans or parents tiring of their children’s mental health being threatened by two years of wearing face diapers were akin to Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden. Unbelievable.
Mind you, the above wasn’t people who were taking any type of decisive action to oppose these measures, but only people who state publicly that they feel in a way which contradicts the Biden administration’s preferred narrative, including comments made (we would assume) on social media. As Orwell’s book “1984” said, a “thought crime.”
Implementing a “Terror Unit” in response to the January 6 protests is a joke. If the DHS were truly concerned about domestic terrorism, such a unit would have been implemented in June 2020 to target violent Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots across the country. However that was in line with the desired political narrative, so all we heard were crickets.
As The Federalist notes, while clearly there was a political animus to the January 6, 2021 Capitol siege, it wasn’t part of some large conspiracy, a fact which the FBI itself confirmed. Last August the FBI said they found “no hard evidence” of any type of elaborate political plot, which was never retracted by anyone connected with the federal government.
As a matter of fact, as Law Enforcement Today, Revolver News and others have reported, the only organized plot regarding January 6 appeared to involve either agents or informants connected to the FBI. (Hello Ray Epps)
The same Senate committee asked if any Jan. 6 defendants had been charged with “insurrection,” to which the DOJ said no, there were not. In an amazing coincidence, only days later a number of Jan. 6 participants were charged with “conspiracy to commit insurrection.” Funny how that works.
There hasn’t been a purge (or attempted purge) of political opponents such as this since the Nixon administration, where that administration had a so-called “enemies list.” In that case, it was political opponents.
In the case of the Biden administration, it’s people who don’t have the same political philosophy. And with the new special unit of the DOJ, that should scare the hell out of everyone.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!