By STEPHEN M. KRASON
The recent actions of federal law enforcement, engineered by the Department of Justice, have been shocking and unsettling in terms of their implications both for the peaceful post-election transition of political power and the future of civil liberties in America. The raid on Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago, Fla., and the storming of the residence of pro-life activist Mark Houck in eastern Pennsylvania represent an ostensible willingness of the political left when it gains power to push aside the rule of law in the interest of political advantage and ideology. They show that the Left — which seems to have completely taken over the Democratic Party — is ready to embrace practices that are outrightly authoritarian in character.
When have we witnessed something like the Mar-a-Lago episode? Even Nixon, complicit in the Watergate cover-up, did not see federal agents raid his residence upon his departure from office — and it’s not clear he would have faced legal consequences even if Ford had not pardoned him. Was Hillary Clinton’s residence stormed because of her possible illegal handling of classified emails? There is a question that even if Trump had withheld some official documents whether he would have been in violation of federal law. In fact, outgoing presidents have routinely been the ones who have decided what documents should be turned over.
In Trump’s case, he was in negotiation with the National Archives, so it appears that he was planning to relinquish documents that he reasonably believed should be in the public domain. The upshot of all this is that it is very questionable that some crime was being committed that would have justified anything like a raid and seizure of putative evidence.
The political purpose of targeting Trump seemed obvious: to stop him from running again in 2024 — and don’t be surprised if the DOJ moves to try to secure a criminal indictment against him to reinforce this. The political purpose of targeting a private citizen like Houck seemed to be to put the brakes on the pro-life movement by discrediting it by making it look like its people are ready to commit crimes to stop abortion.
The alleged crime was when Houck, while sidewalk counseling, pushed an abortion clinic escort who was verbally abusing and threatening his 12-year-old son who was with him. The escort fell to the ground but was not injured. At best, this would be simple assault. There is no federal law pertinent to this; assault is a local and state matter.
Even the Soros-backed Philadelphia district attorney thought there was no grounds for a criminal prosecution and ultimately the state court threw the case out when the escort sought to push charges but never showed up in court.
This all makes one suspicious that upon finding out about this matter the decision-makers in the DOJ — eager to go after the pro-life movement — dredged up the FACE Act as a basis for federal charges. Never mind that the FACE Act was aimed at prosecuting those who impeded access to abortion clinics, like the Operation Rescue activists of an earlier time and others who block clinic entrances. Nothing like this happened in the Houck case. Thus, it seems like a clear example of the arbitrary twisting of law to bring a prosecution, and the only motivation that seems likely is a political one.
It is almost certain that the DOJ’s actions in both the Trump and Houck matters — with the considerable legal and political implications they present — were given the green light by the highest levels of the DOJ. Indeed, they were probably initiated there. That includes Attorney General Merrick Garland and, since he’s a cabinet member, actions such as these have to be seen as actions of the Biden administration. These authoritarian actions by the DOJ have to be understood as reflecting authoritarian objectives of the administration. Anyone concerned about upholding the rule of law would have to view these actions as outrageous — indeed even some former U.S. attorneys and federal law enforcement agents have criticized them — regardless of their political leanings or affiliation.
Moral Integrity
It is troubling that one witnesses only silence from the Democrats in Congress. Do they not have enough moral integrity to speak up and criticize a Democratic presidential administration? This seems to be a contrast from the past, such as in the Vietnam War era, when the main early opposition to the American war policies carried out by a Democratic administration came from Democrats.
It is almost certain that unless they face intense political opposition, the Biden DOJ — and maybe other executive branch departments — will continue behavior such as this. The mid-term elections are almost upon us. Republicans running for Congress and their national leaders should hammer home the threatening implications of these actions — although somehow one won’t be surprised if they don’t, since they have consistently demonstrated their lack of what in the 1930s was called “moxie.”
If they get control of even one house of Congress, they would be completely remiss if they did not move quickly to have hearings into these and similar actions by the DOJ and federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI. If they get the majority in the House of Representatives, they should perhaps move to impeach people like Garland and maybe other top officials under him for abuse of power. They may not succeed in removing them, but the message will be sent that will motivate them to stop such abuses. Congress can also use its power of the purse to make it clear that these agencies will have their appropriations cut if they don’t clean up their act.
Private citizens like Houck who are targeted should keep in mind that they have the option of filing federal and state civil rights lawsuits and perhaps also lawsuits on other grounds. For example, in light of the trauma the raid caused their family the Houcks may have grounds to sue the federal officials in state court in Pennsylvania for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It’s not just the agencies that can be sued, but the agencies’ officials and also the individual federal law enforcement agents who took part in the raids.
The political motivation for the DOJ’s actions is further seen by its apparent readiness to cast a blind eye to the Biden administration’s violation of longstanding federal law, to say nothing of state laws, to permit abortions at VA hospitals.
Members of Congress, other public officials, those victimized by abuses such as these, and private citizens all need to stand up and vigorously oppose such actions and use whatever legal recourse is available to stop this slide toward authoritarianism.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress