Hillary's "Deprogramming" Wish and the FBI's Latest Excuse to Hunt MAGA "Terrorists"

Building on the prosecution of "insurrectionists," the Department of Justice--with strong encouragement from Democratic leaders and voters--will accelerate its manhunt for Trump voters next year.

Artwork by Ruben Cueto

To the surprise of no one paying attention, Newsweek just confirmed the FBI is targeting supporters of Donald Trump in advance of the 2024 election. “The federal government believes that the threat of violence and major civil disturbances around the 2024 U.S. presidential election is so great that it has quietly created a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump's army of MAGA followers,” investigative journalist William M. Arkin reported on October 5.

The new classification, according to Arkin, “is officially defined as ‘domestic violent extremists who cite anti-government or anti-authority motivations [AGAAVE in FBI speak] for violence or criminal activity not otherwise defined, such as individuals motivated by a desire to commit violence against those with a real or perceived association with a specific political party or faction of a specific political party.’”

That sort of gobbledygook is supposed to pass muster as FBI Director Christopher Wray strains to bolster his persistent yet dubious claim that rightwing domestic terrorism poses a top threat to the nation’s security. Wray, after designating January 6 an act of terror early on, has expended every government tool and resource in his expansive arsenal to destroy the lives of thousands of Trump supporters who protested Joe Biden’s election nearly three years ago.

But Wray now has a problem. Without the Department of Justice’s ongoing prosecution of individuals involved in the events of January 6—the overwhelming majority charged with misdemeanors —essentially no data would exist to support Wray’s baseless conclusions. “While the number of [domestic terrorism] investigations in 2021 almost doubled…the number of ‘full investigations’ that led to arrests was only 1,446, not much more than the number of 1,146 January 6 protesters who have been charged with a crime,” Arkin wrote. And even though the U.S. Attorney handling every January 6 case promised to double the caseload, the matter largely is disappearing from the headlines.

So, faced with diminishing public interest in January 6—the high-profile trials of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, featured on the cover of the magazine’s print version, ended a few months ago with little on the horizon except the trial of Donald Trump—the FBI must find creative ways to promote Joe Biden’s equally faux warning about “MAGA extremists.”

Enter the Trump 2024 voter.

Extending the MAGA Purge

Attorney General Merrick Garland also continues to amplify the alleged threat of MAGA-inspired “political violence.” Choking back tears, Garland told “60 Minutes” reporter Scott Pelley last week that Americans cannot use “violence or threats of violence to alter the outcome” of government proceedings. “The American people must protect each other,” Garland said before taking an emotional pause for effect. “They must ensure that they treat each other with civility and kindness.”

This from a regime apparatchik who compares January 6 defendants to al Qaeda and ISIS among other inflammatory insults.

As if on cue, losing 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton just suggested that Trump supporters need to be systematically purged of wrongthink. Clinton told a nodding Christiane Amanpour on CNN that there “needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members” if Trump voters don’t “break” from their preferred candidate.

Mrs. Clinton, however, can rest easy. (And it looks like she could use a good night’s sleep.) Garland’s DOJ, with a big assist from federal judges and public defenders in Washington, is way ahead of her on the campaign to cleanse the poisoned mind of the average deplorable and protect society from this collective menace.

Garland, despite his crocodile tears, is responsible for weaponizing the law to investigate, indict, and incarcerate hundreds of Trump supporters on bogus charges such as obstruction of an official proceeding. Seeking excessive prison sentences even for nonviolent offenders is one way the government can silence political dissent, an act easily considered a form of “deprogramming” a Trump supporter.

Political expression often comes back to bite January 6 defendants. Social media posts, texts, and memes criticizing Democrats are cited as incriminating evidence in government motions. Prosecutors regularly note a defendant’s existing belief about the 2020 election as one reason to keep the individual in jail for an extended amount of time. “Watkins holds the same sentiments she held in January 2021,” assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffery Nestler wrote in the government’s sentencing memo for Oath Keeper Jessica Watkins. “Watkins remains unbowed by her conduct, and continues to hold the same beliefs she acted upon. She is therefore a danger to the public and…mandates a significant sentence of 18 years.” (Watkins was convicted of no violent crime related to January 6.)

In some instances, opposing counsel assists in the DOJ’s mind cleansing effort. As I reported in 2021, Heather Shaner, a radical leftist who has defended several January 6 protesters, provides her government-paid clients with a list of movies and books to disabuse them of their political views. Shaner explained her motives during an interview that year with the Huffington Post: “This is the most wonderful country in the world, it’s been great for all kinds of immigrant groups, except for the fact that it was born of genocide of the Native Americans and the enslavement of people.” Her bullying tactics have resulted in a defendant penning a self-flagellating letter to the court, often apologizing for their “white privilege.”

Some judges hint in open court that a Trump supporter should rethink their political opinions; others state it more directly. After sentencing Stacy Hager, a Trump supporter found guilty of four misdemeanors for January 6, to seven months in prison, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan told Hager he should use his time behind bars “to broaden your sources of information.” Chutkan, now presiding over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump for January 6, further advised Hager in July 2023 “to consider reading some viewpoints that are different from your own…to reconsider some of the positions you have taken and to understand that you may have been motivated by certain beliefs that may not have served you all that well.”

Big Brother Gets Bigger in 2024

In addition to requesting lengthy prison sentences, the DOJ frequently seeks probation after a January 6 defendant is done serving time. “[Restricting] these defendants’ association and communication with other extremists and content published by other extremists furthers the goals of deterring and rehabilitating these defendants as they transition back into the general population following their periods of incarceration,” Nestler wrote in the Watkins motion.

In fact, prosecutors and judges recently were upbraided by the D.C. appellate court for unlawfully imposing both prison and probation for individuals convicted of “parading” in the Capitol, a low level petty offense. In overturning the use of the “split sentence” in one case, with ramifications for at least 60 others, appellate judges said DOJ’s reading of federal sentencing guidance resulted in a form of “post-confinement monitoring,” which just so happens to extend through the 2024 election cycle.

Two judges involved in issuing the unlawful sentences admitted their goal was to keep tabs on defendants during the next presidential election. Judge Thomas Hogan explained to one defendant that probation was necessary “to make sure that you do not fall victim to false gods,” referring to Trump and conservative media outlets, in 2024.

Even more alarming is the fact that a big majority of Democrats endorse the idea of banning wrongthink. A Pew Research Center poll indicated 70 percent of Democrats want the government to “take steps to restrict false information online,” a huge jump in support on the same question from five years ago.

Whatever “false information” means is anyone’s guess. The certainty, of course, is that the same government officials currently throwing their political opponents in jail will be responsible for creating the definition—one that undoubtedly will evolve as Democrats get more desperate to win in 2024.