Charlie Sykes has a piece up about the latest highly disturbing directive from the Department of Justice targeting dissent:
Bondi’s memo links domestic terrorism to activity that “paints legitimate government authority and traditional, conservative viewpoints as ‘fascist,’” and connects this to “a recent string of political violence,” including the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
It then outlines plans to punish such offenses “to the maximum extent permitted by law.”
The new orders create a massive dragnet that focuses on Antifa but Bondi draws an extraordinarily wide circle of groups and individuals who challenge MAGA. It was first reported by Ken Klippenstein, but has not yet received a fraction of the coverage it deserves.
Bondi’s memo says it targets domestic terrorism. But the focus is exhaustively — almost singularly — on ideology. The memo’s language essentially builds a composite culture war enemy. Although the directive mentions the statutory definition requiring acts dangerous to human life, it directs federal law enforcement to investigate individuals whose “animating principle is adherence” to several viewpoints.
And the “extreme viewpoints” and ideological frameworks the Attorney General instructs federal law enforcement to prioritize include? (These are direct quotes)
• Opposition to law and immigration enforcement…
• Extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders…
• Adherence to radical gender ideology…
• Anti-Americanism…
• Anti-capitalism…
• Anti-Christianity…
• Support for the overthrow of the United States Government…
• Hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality,,,
To which the proper reaction is WTAF? How is an FBI agent supposed to measure hostility towards traditional views on family? And what does that even mean? Are they monitoring your social media, who you donate to? Who you are sleeping with? The criteria are so vague, they invite subjective interpretation and mission creep.
Critics are right when they warn that this will end up targeting views that are constitutionally protected. And that may be the whole point.
He points out that Bondi’s order exclusively targets the left despite the fact that the data show most of the threats of political violence are generated by the right (which they have actively suppressed.)
So groups or individuals who advocate for immigration reform, or trans rights, or are opposed to capitalism can now be slotted into this internal network mapping apparatus just based on their beliefs.
The chief legal counsel of Whistleblower Aid nails this, when he says “the memo expressly seeks to redefine political dissent against the president as domestic terrorism.”
[…]
You can read more about it here, here, here, and here.
But this is what I try to emphasize in today’s podcast: You don’t need to get a conviction, or even actually file a case to chill dissent.
If you scare away donors by suggesting the groups are under investigation for tax fraud or, terrorism. You cripple the organizations whether or not any charges are ever even filed.
I don’t mind saying that I think about it. I don’t censor myself and have for many years tried not to be too incontinent in my speech. But I’d be an idiot not to consider if I might come into the cross hairs. Not being a wealthy person it’s fairly intimidating to consider that what I have always considered to be my fundamental, bedrock right to free speech under the constitution could be the end of me.
You don’t have to be a blogger or columnist to be in this position. It could happen to any of us. If you’re on Facebook or Instagram, BlueSky or X you too could come up in some new AI data dragnet. But it’s important not to allow them to make us obey in advance by dropping out of the dialog. We’re not lost yet but we will be if we allow ourselves to be silenced. There is safety in numbers.