Weaponizing Law Enforcement Against Americans

 Reports released by two House committees in December shine a harsh light on the deceptions and oppressive tactics utilized by numerous federal agencies, the Intelligence Community, and leaders of the Democratic Party. During the last year of the first Trump Administration, agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), State Department, and Justice Department (DOJ) initiated improper contacts with media in an effort to censor conservative views. These agencies also took steps to interfere in the 2020 election to benefit Joe Biden.

The Biden-Harris Administration supercharged the weaponization of the federal government against the American people. With the active participation of the media, the administration followed a whole-of-government effort to collude with, and coerce, the media to suppress and censor conservatives and others who opposed progressive goals. It threatened parents with terrorist “threat tagging” and visits from the FBI for speaking their minds, stretched statutory authority beyond recognition to prosecute Donald Trump and his supporters, harassed and penalized whistleblowers, invaded bank privacy, sent heavily armed federal agents into private homes, and brought an unprecedented barrage of litigation against states to force them into compliance with the administration’s unconstitutional goals.

On December 17, 2024, the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight (Administration Subcommittee) released its report on the events surrounding January 6, 2021 and the politicization of the Select Committee (January 6 Committee) established by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to investigate those events. Three days later, the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government (Justice Subcommittee) released a 17,000-page final report detailing the administrative state’s and the Biden-Harris Administration’s repressive censorship enterprise and other abuses.

Based on the evidence described in these reports, there are two inescapable conclusions: (1) regardless of the administration in office, the Deep State in DHS, DoD, DOJ, IRS, the Intelligence Community, and other agencies have arrogated to themselves unconstitutional and unlawful powers to infringe individual liberties, expand rules, and use force to suppress conservatives’ goals, religion, and free speech; and (2) the Biden-Harris Administration, Pelosi, and leading Democrats endorsed, supported, facilitated, and led the expansion of these efforts.

These reports are products of extensive investigations and include copious evidence. Though the Administration Subcommittee’s report can be faulted for its angry tone, a vainglorious pandering to its chairman, Barry Loudermilk, and sometimes hyperbolic conclusions, it provides compelling evidence of wrongdoing. Broader in scope and more thoroughly researched, the Justice Subcommittee’s report is the product of a detailed inquiry into a broad betrayal of trust. Justice Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan is to be commended for uncovering problems and taking steps that have already ameliorated some of these practices.

The findings in these reports show why the Trump Administration must clean house. That is why Trump has nominated sometimes controversial individuals such as Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, John Ratcliffe, Russell Vought, and Rick Grenell. It explains Trump’s impulsive, properly withdrawn nomination of Matt Gaetz and the creation of DOGE as an advisor outside of government. It is why so many of Trump’s appointees have expressed concern about the agencies they have been selected to lead.

Above all, the administration must not redirect targeting—it must eradicate these stains on the American soul.

An Illegitimate, Rigged Show Trial

I believe Donald Trump erred by holding his “Save America” rally in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, separating his call for a peaceful march by 8,500 words words from his peroration, in which he implored the crowd to “fight like hell,” and his dilatory public response to the ensuing violence. I condemn the demonstrators who entered the Capitol or resisted orders to disperse.

Nonetheless, the exaggerated, partisan accounts of that day, invective used by Democratic leaders and the media for political advantage, and the unjustifiable divergence between the fierce overcharging of those with even a scintilla of connection to the January 6 events and the near indifference to the violent left-wing rioters who, following George Floyd’s death, killed or injured hundreds of Americans, burned down billions of dollars of private property, destroyed police stations, occupied cities, and laid a sustained siege to the federal courthouse in Portland, is inexcusable.

The evidence shows that from the outset, the January 6 Committee was rigged to condemn President Trump and lay the foundation for Congress or the courts to reach a finding that he was guilty of insurrection, thereby triggering grounds for prohibiting him from again serving as president under the 14th Amendment. To achieve this result, the January 6 Committee was organized in violation of House rules, and was selective in pursuing its mandate, parsing its evidence, and writing its report. It stage-managed its public hearings and then covered up its wrongdoing by deleting, withholding, and encrypting its files.

On June 30, 2021, the House passed H.R. 503, establishing the January 6 Committee to investigate the “facts, circumstances, and causes” of January 6, and the “preparedness and response” of law enforcement. It included an exemption to House Rule 11 that gave the Committee’s chairman the power to greatly limit questions from the Republicans who would be appointed to the Committee.

Furthermore, House Rule 10, Clause 5 requires that the members of standing committees be elected “from nomination[s] submitted by the respective party caucus or conference.” Speaker Pelosi named seven Democrats and one Republican—Liz Cheney. Two of those Democrats, Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff, previously served as impeachment managers against President Trump. Prior to being selected, Cheney pledged, “I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy proposed five Republicans, but in an unprecedented violation of House rules, Pelosi rejected his nominees. She then named Republican Adam Kinzinger as the final member of the January 6 Committee.

Even with the exclusion of Rule 11, H.R. 503 still required Chairman Bennie Thompson to consult with the Republican ranking member before issuing subpoenas or ordering depositions. House rules require each of the party caucuses to select its ranking members. Because Pelosi excluded Republican nominees, there was no Republican ranking member (though the committee pretended that Cheney served that function). Some of those subpoenaed by the January 6 Committee challenged the subpoenas on this basis, but the courts deferred to Congress.

All committee chairs have the responsibility to archive committee records with the Clerk of the House, who subsequently stores those records with the National Archives and Records Administration. H.R. 503 further requires that all January 6 Committee records be transferred to any committee designated by the Speaker; Pelosi designated the Committee on House Administration.

The January 6 Committee failed to archive or provide the Administration Subcommittee with video recordings of witness interviews, as many as 900 interview summaries or transcripts, and more than one terabyte of digital data. The January 6 Committee also delivered more than 100 encrypted, password protected documents for which it never provided the passwords.

Once underway, the January 6 Committee focused on hyping the horrors of January 6 and assigning blame to Trump. It generally ignored its mandate to investigate preparedness and the response, because that would have established that Trump authorized and directed 10,000 National Guard soldiers to be available to ensure security and safety, and that Pelosi declined that assistance. Because there were no Republican-selected members on the January 6 Committee, there were no cross-examinations, witnesses called, or evidence reviewed at the behest of Republican-selected members.

Every investigatory committee hopes for its John Dean, Nixon’s White House counsel who testified about his first-hand knowledge as a participant in the cover-up of the Watergate break in. The January 6 Committee’s pale substitute was Cassidy Hutchinson, the then-24-year-old Coordinator for Legislative Affairs for White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson testified about things she claims to have been told and about a letter she claims to have transcribed, but which the evidence suggests never happened.

Following her second uneventful interview with January 6 Committee staff, Hutchinson drastically switched her narrative and began testifying to a variety of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims. It is not clear why she did so, but the Administration Subcommittee uncovered evidence of secret conversations between Hutchinson, former White House employee Alyssa Farah Griffin, now a co-host of ABC’s The View, and Liz Cheney. Cheney improperly influenced Hutchinson to fire her attorney and referred her to a number of new attorneys, including a lawyer from the multinational law firm Alston & Bird whom Hutchinson then retained.

Based on hearsay, Hutchinson claimed that Trump had lunged toward the Secret Service driver of his car after his request to go to the Capitol was denied. Trump, the individual Hutchinson claimed gave her the information, and the agents with Trump that day have denied her claim. But after her third interview and retaining the Alston lawyer, Hutchinson suddenly recalled that she heard White House employees saying that Trump had agreed that Pence should be hung. Though there is no corroboration of this allegation, the January 6 Committee featured it throughout its hearings and in its report.

Hutchinson also claimed that she transcribed a note from Meadows, and edited by White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, that conceded that anyone who entered the Capitol without authority had acted illegally. The Administration Subcommittee retained an independent certified handwriting expert who said that Hutchinson’s story is false. Herschmann denies the note is genuine.

The Administration Subcommittee refers to Cheney’s actions as “witness tampering” and recommends a criminal referral and, implicitly, bar discipline. That goes too far by criminalizing common misbehavior; it may be emotionally satisfying, but it will not improve American government.

In 2022, HBO released Pelosi in the House, a documentary directed and produced by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s daughter. It includes footage of Pelosi and members of House and Senate leadership after being evacuated from the Capitol on January 6. The January 6 Committee was in possession of the footage throughout is investigation, but did not publish or archive it.

In one clip, Pelosi admits to her Chief of Staff, Terri McCullough, that they bear responsibility for the lack of security at the Capitol. Discussing her failure to call up the National Guard, Pelosi states, “I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more.”

The Administration Subcommittee also uncovered evidence that senior Defense Department (DoD) officials intentionally delayed deploying the National Guard to the Capitol, despite Trump’s contrary directions. According to interviews conducted by the DoD Inspector General, during a January 3, 2021 meeting that included Trump, Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Trump warned about the large number of protestors expected on January 6 and authorized 10,000 soldiers or National Guard to “make sure it’s a safe event.” Miller promised that there was a plan to do so. Milley further testified to the Inspector General that Trump ordered DoD to use all assets necessary to guarantee the safety of everyone in Washington, D.C. on January 6.

The Administration Subcommittee concluded that in the course of the investigation by the January 6 Committee, DoD and the Biden-Harris Administration possessed information that the Secretary of the Army misled senior congressional leaders by stating that the D.C. National Guard was “on the way” at a time it was not.

It appears that the Biden-Harris Administration, including DoD and the January 6 Committee, colluded to omit from the investigation and its report exculpatory information that would have shown that President Trump attempted to work with DoD and the National Guard to ensure the security of the Capitol at the time of his planned rally on January 6.

Oddly unmentioned in the Subcommittee’s report is that Trump advisors Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were prosecuted and sentenced to four months in prison for refusing to testify before the January 6 committee—the first former White House official to be imprisoned for a contempt of Congress conviction and the first time in 65 years that anyone has been prosecuted for refusing to testify before a House committee. That last time, and each of the ten times before then, the individuals who were imprisoned refused to testify before the reviled, highly partisan House Un-American Activities Committee.

The Administration Subcommittee’s report shows that the events of January 6 were preventable, and that Trump’s speech that day would not have resulted in a riot, or at the least the riot would not have penetrated the Capitol, if Democratic leadership had accepted assistance offered by the president or if DoD had mobilized the National Guard sooner.

While Trump is not without blame for the events of January 6, the January 6 Committee was an undemocratic, rigged, partisan show trial akin to Soviet and Chinese trials that are staged to justify a result rather than find the truth.

The Biden-Harris Administration’s Censorship Complex

The Justice Subcommittee obtained internal communications from social media platforms, Amazon, and others in which executives of these companies attribute suppressing and censoring videos, posts, and other content to “pressure” from the Biden-Harris Administration. For example, on the administration’s third day, the White House emailed Twitter (now X) to demand that a tweet by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. be “removed ASAP.”

Previously unknown is that under intense pressure from the White House, Amazon also suppressed placement and promotion of certain books critical of the administration.

The Justice Subcommittee report concluded that: (1) Big Tech changed its content moderation policies because of pressure from the Biden-Harris White House; (2) the censorship campaign targeted not just falsehoods but also true information, satire, and other content, including Americans’ personal experiences; (3) the censorship campaign had a chilling effect on other speech; (4) the Biden-Harris White House had leverage because of its power over policies that affected media companies; and (5) the Biden-Harris White House pushed censorship of books, not just social media.

The Biden-Harris censorship enterprise had its origins in the Obama and Trump Administrations. Following the 2016 election, offices within the executive branch began efforts to covertly censor Americans’ free expression. The FBI formed the Foreign Influence Task Force in the fall of 2017. The Global Engagement Center (GEC), a multi-agency entity housed within the State Department established by President Obama in early 2016 to counter terrorism, expanded its mandate in 2017 to include countering foreign disinformation, and later also domestic speech (the GEC was closed down on December 23, 2024 when Congress refused to continue its funding). The DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) formed the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force in 2018, which evolved under Biden into the “Mis, Dis, and Malinformation Team” (MDM) in 2021 to counter foreign and American speech.

Once the Biden-Harris Administration took office, these censorship efforts expanded. Senior members of the Biden-Harris White House immediately began a months-long pressure campaign on Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, and other companies to censor views disfavored by the Biden-Harris Administration. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence created the Foreign Malign Influence Center in 2021. DHS created the Orwellian Disinformation Governance Board in May 2022, soon disbanded following broad condemnation. CISA also built out and met with its MDM Advisory Subcommittee throughout 2022.

Even during the Trump Administration, key activities of this censorship complex involved “inoculating” the public against damaging stories about Biden family influence peddling and taking other steps to bolster Joe Biden’s candidacy against Trump.

Foreign Censorship

The Justice Subcommittee demonstrated that the threat to Americans’ free speech increasingly includes foreign governments, including Brazil, the European Union, and Australia, but that the Biden-Harris Administration failed to defend Americans’ rights. For example, the Justice Subcommittee determined that in 2022, the FBI facilitated censorship requests to American social media companies on behalf of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), a Ukrainian intelligence agency then infiltrated by Russian security services. The SBU transmitted to the FBI lists of social media accounts that allegedly “spread Russian disinformation.” The FBI requested—and, in some cases, directed—the world’s largest social media platforms to censor Americans engaging in constitutionally protected speech online, including a verified State Department account and accounts belonging to American journalists.

The Biden-Harris Administration also failed to protect Americans confronting censorship outside the United Sates. In Brazil, Justice Alexandre de Moraes forced American companies such as X and Rumble to cease operations in Brazil after they refused to comply with his illegal censorship orders. A European bureaucrat threatened American companies with retaliation under European law for facilitating political discourse in the United States. Australia considered legislation that purported to censor online speech globally. The Justice Subcommittee report observed that the Biden-Harris Administration refused to take a leadership role opposing these efforts. Likely that is because multiple Biden-Harris officials, including Harris and former climate czar John Kerry, have characterized the First Amendment as an obstacle rather than an essential right (see here, here, and here).

Artificial Intelligence

The Justice Subcommittee also uncovered strong evidence that the Biden-Harris Administration covertly tried to coerce AI companies by pressuring developers to censor new models, funding the development of AI-powered censorship tools, and collaborating with censorious foreign nations on AI regulations. The Justice Subcommittee identified examples of the Biden-Harris Administration funding the development of both AI-powered censorship tools and pressing tech companies to selectively exclude disfavored information when training generative AI in order to bias or censor responses.

With regard to potential AI legislation, the Justice Subcommittee report recommends that Congress follow four principles to protect Americans’ right to free expression: (1) ensure the federal government is involved in private AI algorithm or dataset decisions; (2) ban funding of censorship related research; (3) end foreign collaboration on AI regulations involving the censorship of lawful speech; and (4) avoid AI regulation that gives the government coercive leverage.

Non-Governmental Proxies

The Justice Subcommittee described how the federal government colluded with private and academic institutions to target and censor Americans’ speech, including (1) how CISA used proxies and partners to target and censor Americans’ election-related speech; and (2) how the National Science Foundation funded and supported the development of AI-powered tools that would supercharge the government’s ability to censor disfavored speech.

The most notable effort to cover up government censorship efforts was CISA’s (and later GEC’s) partnership with Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, called the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), which was launched in 2020 during the Trump Administration. Instead of focusing on legitimate cybersecurity threats, EIP focused on so-called misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, and mutated into the nerve center of the federal government’s domestic surveillance activities.

On November 10, 2021, CISA director Jen Easterly gave a speech in which she asserted that CISA is in the business of protecting infrastructure, and “the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure.” She went on to say that Americans should not be free to determine the truth.

Under Easterly’s tenure, CISA (1) worked with federal partners to mature a whole-of-government approach to curbing alleged misinformation and disinformation; (2) considered the creation of an anti-misinformation “rapid response team” capable of physically deploying across the country; (3) moved its censorship operation to the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), a CISA-funded non-profit, after Missouri and Louisiana, along with several other plaintiffs, sued CISA and the Biden-Harris Administration; and (4) used the same CISA-funded non-profit as its spokesperson to “avoid the appearance of government propaganda.” Members of CISA’s advisory committee internally worried that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work.”

In a draft of its 2022 recommendations, a CISA subcommittee recommended that it step up the use of outside organizations in performing its functions, which increasingly focused on censoring Americans. Though correctly warned by CIA legal counsel that “the government cannot ask an outside party to do something the Intelligence Community cannot do,” CISA disregarded that advice to bypass the First Amendment and “avoid the appearance of government propaganda.”

One method CISA used to censor Americans is called “Switchboarding.” This is the federal government’s practice of referring requests for the removal of content on social media from generally Democratic state and local election officials to the relevant platforms. For the 2022 election cycle, CISA transferred this function to EI-ISAC. The FBI was often copied or referenced in requests to suppress or remove content, signaling that it would take action if the request was not acted upon.

CISA claimed that its mission did not include censoring “content that is polarizing, biased, partisan or contains viewpoints expressed about elections or politics,” “inaccurate statements about an elected or appointed official, candidate, or political party,” or “broad, non-specific statements about the integrity of elections or civic processes that do not reference a specific current election administration activity.” But in practice, state and local election officials used the CISA-funded EI-ISAC to silence excluded criticism and political dissent.

For example, in August 2022 a Democratic government official in Loudoun County, Virginia, reported a Tweet featuring an unedited video of a county official, “because it was posted as part of a larger campaign to discredit the word of” that official regarding Loudon County’s on-going dispute about the use of Critical Race Theory in county schools. EI-ISAC sought to assist that county official, demonstrating that her “misinformation report” was nothing more than a politically motivated censorship attempt.

Following increased public awareness of CISA’s role in government-induced censorship, and the Justice Subcommittee’s issuance of subpoenas to Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Meta in February 2023, CISA scrubbed its website of references to domestic MDM. Prior to the cleansing, the domain “CISA.gov/mdm” was associated with a webpage titled “Mis, Dis, Malinformation,” which included an overview of CISA’s efforts to censor foreign and domestic actors.

The Biden Justice Department led efforts to stall compliance by CISA and its private partners with Justice Subcommittee subpoenas.

Election Interference Operations

The Justice Subcommittee found extensive evidence of a concerted campaign by the FBI to preemptively debunk—or “prebunk”—allegations about the Biden family’s influence peddling scheme in advance of the 2020 presidential election. Starting prior to the New York Post’s October 14, 2020 report about Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, this campaign—during Trump’s first term—included warning social media platforms about a pre-election Russian influence operation relating to Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian company Burisma. As a result, many social media platforms adopted policies that suppressed or banned coverage of the Post’s story as a potential Russian hack-and-leak operation.

The FBI had been in possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop since late 2019, and used it in one or more investigations in 2020. It knew the laptop was real and that its contents were authentic, but did not correct the false justifications for censoring the Post’s story.

Even after social media companies stopped censoring the stories, 51 former intelligence community officials, using their official titles and citing their national security credentials, released a public statement suggesting that the story “had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” The Justice Subcommittee obtained communications among signers, however, that established that many doubted the laptop was in fact Russian disinformation. The Justice Subcommittee investigation revealed that the public statement was politically motivated from the start. As former CIA Director Michael Morell testified, it was designed to “help Vice President Biden” in his presidential campaign.

As the emails soliciting signatures made clear, “We think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate,” and “we want to give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.” The Justice Committee’s interim report detailed how Morell spearheaded the statement after receiving a call from then-campaign advisor, and later Biden Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. The Biden campaign coordinated the statement’s dissemination to the media.

Nonetheless, in their public statements, interviews, and communications, the signers did not correct Politico, MSNBC, or other media that reported the statement as establishing the laptop was Russian disinformation, or proactively seek to correct that perception. Rather, the Intelligence Community worked to diminish the reach of stories that could be seen as harmful to Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.

A report issued jointly by the Justice Subcommittee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence detailed previously nonpublic information that CIA officials, including Trump CIA Director Gina Haspel, were aware of the statement before its publication. In fact, some of the signatories, including Morell, were under contract with the CIA at or about the time of its publication and had access to confidential information that discredited the letter’s purpose.

In a debate with Trump on October 22, 2020, Biden referred to the statement as proof that the laptop was a Russian hoax, and that Trump’s attacks were “garbage.” Numerous signers lauded Biden’s use of their statement in their internal communications.

A book written by Andy Slavitt, a senior advisor to Biden who was deeply involved in the censorship enterprise, criticized Americans who disagreed with the administration’s overriding the Constitution as an “obsession with individual liberties.”

Weaponizing Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Against Americans

The FBI leadership’s trend toward political partisanship in recent years has disturbed the ranks of front-line FBI agents. FBI whistleblowers disclosed examples of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Bureau. They characterized the FBI leadership as “cancerous,” “enveloped in politicization and weaponization,” “rotted at its core,” and having a “systemic culture of unaccountability.”

According to the Justice Subcommittee, the FBI brutally retaliated against many of them for breaking ranks—suspending them without pay, preventing them from seeking outside employment, and purging suspected disloyal employees. The FBI also abused its security clearance adjudication process to target whistleblowers. Under pressure from the Justice Subcommittee, the FBI reinstated the clearance of at least one decorated FBI employee.

During the Biden-Harris Administration, the Justice Department and FBI advanced a two-tiered system of justice—investigating and prosecuting individuals or groups with disfavored views. Documents received pursuant to the Justice Subcommittee’s subpoenas show that the FBI singled out Americans who are pro-life, pro-family, and support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists. It targeted its employees who hold conservative views, investigated parents at school board meetings, and sought to invade Catholic churches in the name of fighting “domestic terrorism.” The IRS, Treasury Department, and other Justice Department agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), misused federal funds to target Americans.

Perhaps nothing is more emblematic of the Justice Department leadership’s disdain for American people than a memorandum issued by Attorney General Merrick Garland on October 4, 2021 to the FBI director and all U.S. attorneys that instructed them to develop strategies to investigate parents who voiced objections at school board meetings. The Justice Department’s documents demonstrate that there was no compelling nationwide law-enforcement justification for the Attorney General’s directive. Rather, the administration’s goal was to silence critics of its radical education policies and neutralize an issue that was threatening Democratic Party prospects in the close gubernatorial race in Virginia.

In response to the Justice Subcommittee’s subpoena, the FBI acknowledged for the first time that, following Garland’s directive, it opened 25 “Guardian assessments” of school board threats, and that six of these investigations were run by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. According to the FBI, none of these investigations resulted in federal arrests or charges, highlighting the political motives behind the actions.

Under Biden and Garland, the ATF issued a rule to drastically expand the number of Americans who would require a license to deal in firearms. A federal district court judge issued temporary restraining orders prohibiting enforcement of that rule pending a decision in the case. To send a message, a large contingent of heavily armed ATF agents executed a pre-dawn raid of alleged dealer Bryan Malinowski that left him dead. The raid is reminiscent of the FBI’s similar raid against pro-life activist Mark Houk, who was later acquitted of all charges.

In 2022, Congress appropriated $78.9 billion in new funding to the IRS, including $45 billion to hire as many as 87,000 agents. Following approximately a nine month investigation, the Justice Subcommittee cited evidence that the IRS had weaponized unannounced visits against the administration’s political foes, including an unannounced field visit to the home of journalist Matt Taibbi the very day he testified before Congress about government abuse. Though neither Taibbi nor his accountant had ever received a notice from the IRS about an issue with his tax returns, the IRS had opened a case against Taibbi on Christmas Eve—a Saturday—three weeks after he began reporting on government censorship involving Twitter. Taibbi owed no taxes; in fact, the IRS owed Taibbi a substantial refund.

Pressure and oversight about abusive field visits led the IRS to prohibit unannounced field visits to taxpayers’ homes.

The Justice Subcommittee also found that the Justice Department attempted to access private communications from members of Congress and congressional staff involved in conducting oversight of the Department.

Weaponizing Law Enforcement Against Catholic Americans

The Justice Subcommittee revealed and stopped the FBI’s effort to target Catholic Americans because of their religious views.

While the FBI claims it “does not categorize investigations as domestic terrorism based on the religious beliefs of the subject involved,” an FBI-wide memorandum originating from its Richmond Field Office did just that. Under the guise of tackling the threat of domestic terrorism, the memorandum painted certain “radical-traditionalist Catholics” as violent extremists and proposed opportunities for the FBI to infiltrate Catholic churches as a form of “threat mitigation.”

The Justice Subcommittee’s investigation began in February 2023 after a whistleblower revealed the existence of an anti-Catholic memorandum in internal FBI systems. FBI employees could not define the meaning of “radical-traditionalist Catholic” when preparing, editing, or reviewing the memorandum. Nevertheless, this single investigation became the basis for an FBI-wide warning about the dangers of “radical” Catholics.

From witness testimony and FBI internal documents, the Justice Subcommittee learned that there were errors at every step of the memorandum’s drafting, review, approval, and removal process. For example, the two FBI employees who co-authored the memorandum told FBI internal investigators that they knew the sources cited in the memorandum, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, Salon, and The Atlantic, had a political bias.

Coordinating with Financial Institutions to Surveil Americans

The Justice Subcommittee’s investigation revealed that federal law enforcement has virtually unchecked access to private financial data, is testing out new methods and technology to embed financial surveillance into the American financial framework, and has deputized the financial sector as an investigative arm (see here and here).

The Bank Secrecy Act authorizes the Treasury Department to impose reporting obligations on businesses and financial institutions, including Currency Transaction Reports for any individual involved in any transaction of over $10,000 and a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) when it identifies a “suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation.” Documents received by the Justice Subcommittee from at least 17 entities, including banks, crowdfunding sites, money service businesses, and the Treasury Department, show that the FBI has manipulated this process by encouraging banks to file SARs based on names and selectors provided by the FBI. The fact that a SAR has been filed is not disclosed to customers.

The FBI developed typologies that target Americans with conservative views, including gun owners, those concerned with illegal immigration, and those opposed to COVID mandates. Other criteria used for these warrantless searches of financial records include contributions to conservative organizations, including leading legal organizations that defend religious and conservative views such as Alliance Defending Freedom. The FBI also uses search terms like “MAGA” and “TRUMP” and has treated purchases of religious texts or firearms as indicators of “extremism.”

The Justice Subcommittee discovered that financial institutions confidentially report millions of Americans’ transactions to the federal government and that at least 25,000 government officials have access to search and download Americans’ financial information from government repositories without a warrant.

Weaponizing the FTC Against Elon Musk

The announcement of Elon Musk’s proposed acquisition of Twitter generated an enormous backlash among elected officials and activists on the Left, some of whom called for the federal government to “block” the purchase.

On April 25, 2022, Twitter accepted Musk’s offer. Three days later, an attorney for Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan sent an email to the other commissioners requesting that they vote the following day to approve a previously negotiated consent decree with Twitter that included additional privacy and security protections. Prior to this email, Khan had not circulated a copy of the consent decree or FTC staff recommendations to the Republican commissioners—despite having substantially completed the decree a year earlier. In addition, despite repeated requests, FTC staff had not briefed the Republican commissioners about the proposal. In rushing to a vote, Khan ignored the traditional three-week notice period used by commissioners to study proposals.

Following the closing of the acquisition, Democrats in Washington stepped up their pressure campaign. Seven Democratic senators issued a joint press release calling for the FTC to investigate Musk’s so-called “alarming steps” at Twitter. They demanded that the FTC “vigorously oversee its consent decree” with Twitter, and outlined the different purported grounds on which Musk could have already violated the terms of the decree in his first few weeks of ownership. President Biden signaled support for government intervention, saying that “there’s a lot of ways” the government could review the transaction.

The FTC launched an aggressive campaign to harass Twitter, particularly after Musk took steps to reorient Twitter around free speech. Within three months, the FTC sent Twitter over a dozen letters that made more than 350 specific demands, including that Twitter provide, among other things: (1) information relating to journalists’ work protected by the First Amendment, including their work to expose censorship abuses by Big Tech and the federal government; (2) every internal communication “relating to Elon Musk”; (3) information about whether Twitter is “selling its office equipment”; (4) all reasons Twitter terminated Jim Baker, a former FBI lawyer; (5) information disaggregated by “each department, division, and/or team,” regardless of whether the work had anything to do with privacy or information security.

Khan refused to meet with Musk to discuss the situation until Twitter fully complied with all demands, many of which had nothing to do with the consent decree. Ultimately, after its extensive and expensive harassment, the FTC found no violations of the consent decree.

Democrats’ Target Political Opponents

The Justice Subcommittee also issued two reports (here and here) that summarize already known information about the Democrats’ unprecedented campaign of lawfare to keep Trump off of the campaign trail, drain him of resources, and attempt to prevent millions of Americans from being able to cast a ballot for their candidate of choice. My articles on this lawfare (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) also discuss its impact on Trump’s lawyers and supporters, whereas the Subcommittee’s reports focus on Trump.

* * *

Most conservatives believe in restraint. We try to win with integrity, logic, and tradition. That leaves us unprepared for asymmetrical attacks from the Left.

“Freedom is fragile thing,” Ronald Reagan warned in 1967, “it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and has served as a director and C-suite officer of public and private companies. Spivak regularly contributes to The American Mind, RealClearPolitics, and National Review, and is a frequent guest on radio and television programs. He was chairman of the Editorial Board of the Knowledge Exchange Business Encyclopedia and a long-time director of the RAND Corporation Center for Corporate Ethics and Governance. He received his A.B., M.B.A., and J.D. from Columbia University.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/weaponizing-law-enforcement-against-americans/