Section 3.8: Department of Justice
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowing that claims of collusion with Russia were false, collaborated with Democratic operatives to inject the story into the 2016 election through strategic media leaks, falsified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications, and lied to Congress.”
We’re off to a bad start, here. Many people have written about this far better than I and a greater length. In fact, there are entire books written detailing Trump’s proven collusion with Russia.
I address this at some length in the analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“Personnel within the FBI engaged in a campaign to convince social media companies and the media generally that the story about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop was the result of a Russian misinformation campaign—while the FBI had possession of the laptop the entire time and could have clarified the authenticity of the source.”
“The DOJ engaged in conduct to chill the free speech rights of parents across the United States in response to supposed “threats” against school boards, yet it failed to engage in any concerted campaign to protect the rights of Americans who actually were terrorized by acts of violence like those perpetrated against pregnancy care centers.”
This is a false equivalency wrapped in an overstatement. The term “chilling effect” suggests that the DOJ’s actions made parents afraid to speak out for fear of legal or governmental consequences. He gives no examples of this happening, nor could I find any.
Hamilton could be talking about local schoolboards having people arrested for disruptive behavior, of which there is more than one example, but also would be local law enforcement’s purview, not the Department of Justice. It’s laughable for him to claim that local schoolboard meetings are somehow under the purview of the Department of Justice.
The idea that if the DOJ hadn’t been so focused on squashing free speech at schoolboard meetings, they could have prevented pro-life health care clinics from being vandalized by pro-choice advocates, is ludicrous. (And yes, he’s talking about that, not the FAR more common incidents of pregnant women seeking care who are terrorized by pro-life advocates.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“The department has devoted unprecedented resources to prosecuting American citizens for misdemeanor trespassing offenses or violations of the FACE Act while dismissing prosecutions against radical agents of the Left like Antifa.”
We might have our first mention of the ANTIFA boogeyman, here! Here’s the difference. ANTIFA is an ideology, which is short for “anti-fascism.” Know who used to be anti-fascism? EVERYONE IN AMERICA. My grandfathers were ANTIFA. Back then, they just called it the U.S. Navy. Being anti-fascist is not a crime. Misdemeanor trespassing IS a crime. Violations of the FACE Act ARE CRIMES. (The FACE act is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it a federal crime to use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to prevent individuals from obtaining or providing reproductive health care services.)
The false equivalence/whataboutism is strong with this one. He’s actually suggesting that being anti-fascist, while committing no crimes, is on par with terrorizing pregnant women or trespassing (and seems to be suggesting that terrorizing pregnant women shouldn’t be prosecuted with any enthusiasm.) The secondary false equivalence is the idea that terrorizing pregnant women is equally as offensive as trespassing.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“The department has consistently threatened that any conduct not aligning with the liberal agenda “could” violate federal law—without actually taking a position that the conduct in question is illegal—using the prospect of protracted litigation and federal sanctions to chill disfavored behavior such as with state efforts to restrict abortion or prevent genital mutilation of children.”
Note that he provides zero examples of the DOJ threatening to prosecute people for crimes for not “aligning with the liberal agenda.”
The phrase “genital mutilation of children” is particularly inflammatory and misleading. It refers to gender-affirming surgeries, but using this term intentionally evokes a sense of horror and human rights violations, conflating a medical and ethical debate about transgender healthcare with the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), a widely condemned cultural practice. The language here is designed to provoke outrage rather than engage in a good faith debate about gender-affirming care.
This statement is intended to fearmonger, inflame, and create further cultural division. Are trans children undergoing genital surgeries? No. Gender-affirming care can start as early as age 11, and can be things like allowing the child to dress as they want, and be called the names they want. Sometimes it means reversible hormone therapy. Surgery is held off until the trans child is legally an adult20, with extremely limited exceptions.
“The general recommendation is for gender affirming surgeries to be done after age 18 with limited exceptions,” Dr. Michael Irwig, director of transgender medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, wrote in an email. “The patient should always be of an age where they have adequate maturity including the ability to understand the potential risks and benefits of any treatment.” [Source]21
In short, nobody is out there “mutilating childrens’ genitals”, unless you count circumcision.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“The department has sued multiple states regarding their efforts to enhance election integrity.”
No. Hamilton is mischaracterizing here the DOJ’s lawsuits to ensure that voting rights protections are not undermined by state laws that discriminate in the name of “security.” Two examples of this are Georgia’s SB202 and Texas’s SB1.
In 2021, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Georgia, alleging that its new election law, SB202, discriminated against Black voters and violated the Voting Rights Act. The law introduced measures such as voter ID requirements for absentee ballots and restrictions on ballot drop boxes, which opponents argued disproportionately affected minority voters.
“Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ, alleged that Georgia’s law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting laws – and not only has a disproportionate impact on voters of color but includes several provisions that were “adopted with the intent to deny or abridge Black citizens’ equal access to the political process.”
The DOJ also filed a lawsuit against Texas in 2021, challenging certain provisions of its voting law, SB1. The lawsuit alleged that the new rules, which limited absentee voting and empowered partisan poll watchers, violated the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making it harder for certain groups, such as disabled individuals and non-English speakers, to vote.
Neither of the measures would have enhanced election “security”, which is why the DOJ sued.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“The department has failed to do its part to stop the flood of fentanyl and other deadly drugs that are flowing across our borders and decimating families and communities across the United States.”
“A department that prosecutes FACE Act cases while ignoring dozens of violent attacks on pregnancy care centers and/or the coordinated violation of laws that prohibit attempts to intimidate Supreme Court Justices by parading outside of their homes has clearly lost its way. A department that has twice engaged in covert domestic election interference and propaganda operations—the Russian collusion hoax in 2016 and the Hunter Biden laptop suppression in 2020—is a threat to the Republic.”
More lies and exaggerations. The incident he’s referring to of people ‘parading’ outside conservative Supreme Court Justice’s homes were peaceful legal protestors and picketers, being monitored by U.S. Marshals who didn’t hurt anyone while exercising their First Amendment rights.
“The relatively orderly scene, with no sign of any local police presence, stands in stark contrast to the portrait painted by Republicans and conservative activists.”
So, it’s perfectly clear why the DOJ didn’t pursue charges against any of these protestors: What they were doing wasn’t illegal. Nicholas Roske, the man who was arrested near Kavanaugh’s home while in possession of a handgun (AND WHO TURNED HIMSELF IN AND SURRENDERED), did have attempted murder charges levied against him.
Hamilton arguing that the FBI should “protect the Constitution” while at the same time prosecuting legal protestors is insanity. I couldn’t find an example of “violent attacks on pregnancy care centers”, i.e., people protesting at pro-life clinics and getting violent, without facing prosecution. Here’s a case where three protestors graffitied threats on a pro-life clinic, and all three pleaded guilty, indicating that they were indeed prosecuted. They did not commit physical violence (although the threat of violence is still violence under the law.)
In this article by the Guardian, they detail some instances of this type of thing occurring, but note that nobody has been injured (which is not to downplay the seriousness – sometimes arson has been involved). But again, there’s no evidence that the DOJ has failed to prosecute these events equally.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“Conduct an immediate, comprehensive review of all major active FBI investigations and activities and terminate any that are unlawful or contrary to the national interest.”
I guarantee you that the next Trump administration would simply find any FBI investigation into any of his criminal activities “not in the national interest” and drop them. This is by design and in the service of declaring the President above the law.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.
“The next conservative Administration must ensure that the Department of Justice devotes significant effort to reducing violent crime nationwide.”
In point of fact, violent crime has dropped sharply recently:
“The drop in violent crime puts a serious dent in one of the most frequently used lines of attack by former President Trump and his allies, who have sought to tie Democrats to the issue since 2020.”
Hamilton goes on to argue that the Federal Government should step in and prosecute criminals wherever they feel states aren’t prosecuting people appropriately, which is federal overreach and violates state sovereignty. He claims that “leftist” jurisdictions are refusing to enforce the law against LGBTQ+ people and immigrants (explicitly argued on page 585, paragraph 4.) This is ridiculous, and he cites no examples of what he means. Does he mean they should be prosecuted BECAUSE they’re LGBTQ+ or immigrants? Or does he mean that leftists are letting LGBTQ+ people and immigrants commit crimes with impunity? Either one is alarmingly false.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.8: Department of Justice here.