JAN. 6 BANK SEARCHES
Federal law enforcement is being accused of searching private transactions in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol breach, emphasizing key terms related to religious and political beliefs.
The stunning allegations claim that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)—the U.S. Treasury Department’s financial crime-fighting unit—urged banks to comb through the private transactions of customers using terms such as “MAGA” and “Trump.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) leveled the accusation in a recent letter to former FinCEN division director Noah Bishoff, describing the queries as “pervasive financial surveillance” carried out at the request of law enforcement that raise doubts about Treasury’s “respect for fundamental civil liberties.”
Jordan said in the letter that the House Judiciary Committee and House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are in possession of documents indicating that FinCEN sent out materials to banks on behalf of law enforcement that outlined so-called “typologies” of persons of interest in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
These materials were later sent to the FBI and Department of Justice as it carried out the largest manhunt in its history following the Capitol breach.
“According to this analysis, FinCEN warned financial institutions of ‘extremism’ indicators that include ‘transportation charges, such as bus tickets, rental cars, or plane tickets, for travel to areas with no apparent purpose,’ or ‘the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views,’” Jordan wrote.
Purchasing religious texts was also dubbed an indicator of “extremism” by FinCEN.
“In other words, FinCEN urged large financial institutions to comb through the private transactions of their customers for suspicious charges on the basis of protected political and religious expression,” Jordan said.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told The Epoch Times that the queries related to religion were “beyond alarming.”
“If we did a word search in history of the type of activities the Biden administration is engaged in, it would return words like ‘KGB,’ ’totalitarian,‘ ’repressive,’ ‘anti-democratic,’ and ‘grave threat to freedom,’” Perkins said.
Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel of the First Liberty Institute, called the allegations “outrageous and frankly chilling.”
“Weaponizing the federal government against religious Americans freely exercising their constitutionally protected freedom is outrageous and a danger to all our freedoms. It makes a mockery of our laws. When religious people are attacked and religious freedom is not upheld, all other civil liberties—including economic freedom—soon start crumbling.”
Jordan concluded his letter with a request for testimony from Bishoff, who would have been responsible for the bureau’s liaising with federal law enforcement in its requests to spotlight suspects in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, incident.
This isn’t the first time these kinds of allegations have come to light.
In May, Jordan revealed allegations that Bank of America had “voluntarily” handed over records of Jan. 6, 2021 purchases in Washington to the FBI.
The bombshell allegations come at a time when the treatment of Jan. 6 defendants—and the methods employed by the FBI to identify and arrest Jan. 6 suspects—have become increasingly divisive.
President Joe Biden celebrated the government’s aggressive response to the Capitol breach in a speech to mark the third anniversary of the Capitol breach.
By contrast, President Donald Trump rallied his base on the eve of the Jan. 6 anniversary.
“The J6 hostages, I call them ... Nobody has been treated ever in history so badly as those people,” the former president said at a Jan. 5 rally in Iowa, where he pledged to pardon a “large portion” of imprisoned Jan. 6 defendants.
—Joseph Lord, Mark Tapscott, and Tom Ozimek
SHUTDOWN AVERTED—FOR NOW
Yesterday, Congress passed legislation to avert a government shutdown as the fate of national defense legislation related to Ukraine and the southern border remains up in the air.
Every year, Congress has to pass 12 spending bills to keep the government funded and functioning.
So far, the House and Senate have failed to agree on any of these 12 bills for fiscal year 2024.
Last year, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) passed legislation to keep the government funded at previous levels until a two-part deadline of Jan. 19 and Feb. 2—a piece of legislation known in the parlance of Washington as a continuing resolution (CR).
In a 314–108 vote, the House voted to extend those deadlines to March 1 and March 8 following passage of the same measure in the Senate.
CRs have been controversial among Republicans, particularly among the right-wing House Freedom Caucus.
For many Republicans, the threat of a government shutdown is viewed as a prime opportunity to force policy concessions—particularly on spending and border security—from the Democratic Senate and President Joe Biden.
After it became obvious this week that the House and Senate still couldn’t agree on the substance of these bills prior to that deadline, another CR was brought to the floor—breaking Johnson’s previous commitment not to pass any more stopgaps.
Johnson rebuffed an eleventh-hour effort by House Freedom Caucus rebels to amend the CR to include border security provisions.
But in an indication of how divisive the procedure is, Republicans were nearly evenly split on passing it. 107 voted to pass the CR, while 106 voted against it.
While Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were able to reach an agreement this time, a separate national security deal is much more contentious.
Republicans, especially in the House, have become increasingly jaded with providing U.S. support for Ukraine in a war that’s stagnated, with no clear strategy for victory on either side.
For Ukraine, victory means nothing less than the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from its pre-war borders and the restoration of all its territory—including Crimea, seized by Russia in 2014.
But many Republicans, including President Donald Trump, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), have called for Ukraine to make peace on less than optimal terms.
Other Republicans, meanwhile, support more robust investment in Ukraine, arguing that doing so is critical to thwarting Russia’s broader regional ambitions, and to deter other authoritarian states like China and Iran from similar acts of aggression.
But almost all agree that for Ukraine to get the additional funding Biden has requested, Democrats will need to make concessions on border security.
House Republicans, including Johnson, have demanded nothing less than H.R. 2—an all-encompassing border security bill passed by the House in a partisan vote last year. Senate Democrats say this is a “non-starter.”
A leaked Senate proposal—which would allegedly distribute 50,000 new green cards and allow 5,000 illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. each day—has been batted down by House Republicans, who have continued to demand H.R. 2.
“Absolutely not,” Johnson said of the Senate proposal in a post on X.
The actual text of the deal hasn’t been released, and it’s unclear when the bill will be released.
Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), told reporters that she didn’t want to comment until she saw the text of the bill, but said “We might need to work to be able to come to something that house can pass.”
Greene, a critic of the proposal and the war in Ukraine more broadly, told The Epoch Times that during a conversation with Johnson yesterday, the speaker said he wouldn’t bring the proposal to the House floor without wider-reaching border security reforms.
Even Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.), one of the most moderate members of the House Republican conference, said he agreed with the demand for H.R. 2.
“Whatever border security package we adopt, will have to be bipartisan, and it will have to pass both houses of the Congress,” Molinaro told reporters. “My position is very similar to everyone else in our conference: get us H.R. 2, get us to the principles of H.R. 2, and we can talk about it then.”
He cited reforms to the illegal alien parole system, additional resources for Border Patrol, and a restoration of former President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy as must-haves.
Vance was also critical of the proposal.
“I just don’t think we’re gonna meaningfully put a dent in this thing unless we have some very serious border security provisions,” he told The Epoch Times. “So far, I haven’t seen evidence that that’s what we’re gonna get.”
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a key negotiator of the package, defended it, saying people needed to read the text before being critical.
“What really solves this is people getting a chance to actually know the facts and to see it,” Lankford told The Epoch Times.
—Joseph Lord
3 GUN RIGHTS CASES BEFORE SCOTUS
Gun rights are back at the Supreme Court this term with the justices considering bump stocks, gun rights for domestic abusers, and government backlash against gun rights advocacy.
Three cases—United States v. Rahimi, Cargill v. Garland, and National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Maria T. Vullo—present the Court with an opportunity to set precedent and clarify how the Second Amendment applies more than 200 years after its ratification.
History and tradition were the guiding principles Justice Clarence Thomas included in his majority opinion New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which struck down a century-old gun restriction. Justice Thomas argued that “to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Bruen resurfaced at the Court in November when the justices heard oral argument about Zackey Rahimi, who broke his domestic violence-related restraining order by being in possession of multiple firearms. Applying Bruen, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a federal law prohibiting his possession violated the Second Amendment.
DOJ lawyers told the Court that the Fifth Circuit misread the Bruen decision. William Kirk, a Washington state-based lawyer who specializes in the Second Amendment, told The Epoch Times that the United States has “a historical tradition of disarming people that we believe to be dangerous.”
Due process concerns have come from others, who argue that domestic violence restraining orders may be applied without a rigorous adjudication.
“The most important thing Second Amendment supporters should want the Supreme Court to state in the Rahimi case is that the government may not disarm any American citizen unless there is first and foremost a court finding that a person is violently dangerous, after a robust evidentiary hearing with counsel, live witnesses, and ample due process,” constitutional attorney Mark Smith told The Epoch Times.
Cargill v. Garland similarly involves federal action but this time from the Justice Department—under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)—which reclassified bump stocks in 2018 as machine gun parts regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The decision followed a tragedy in Las Vegas where a shooter killed 58 using rifles outfitted with bump stocks.
The Fifth Circuit in this case also ruled against gun regulation, stating that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machine gun” set forth in federal law.
In National Rifle Association v. Maria T. Vullo, New York is once again in the spotlight with the NRA alleging that the government used its regulatory authority to coerce insurance companies, banks, and others into cutting ties with the group. This case focuses on the First Amendment with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is open to gun control, supporting the NRA in court.
–Sam Dorman and Michael Clements
WHAT’S HAPPENING
- The annual March for Life takes place in the nation’s capital.
- President Donald Trump, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, and Gov. Ron DeSantis hold campaign events in New Hampshire ahead of the crucial Jan. 23 Republican primary election.
- The DC Circuit Court of Appeals may issue a decision on Trump’s presidential immunity appeal.
Former White House adviser Steve Bannon predicted in an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times’ Nathan Worcester that the first 100 days of Trump’s second term will set a 50-year agenda, likening his prediction to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first 100 days.
Trump said in a Jan. 17 campaign speech that he would “never allow” the U.S. Treasury to create a digital dollar. The Epoch Times’ Andrew Moran reported on the promise, previously a key promise made by biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who warned that such a device could be used as a means of financial control.
As the war in Ukraine becomes stagnant, with no clear path to victory for either side and U.S. support for the conflict dwindling, Ukraine is seeking a “game changer,” The Epoch Times’ Andrew Thornebrooke wrote in a premium report.
In a scathing report, the Department of Justice said that police in Uvalde, Texas had failed to properly do their jobs during a school shooting, the Wall Street Journal reported. The attack left 19 fourth graders and two teachers dead as police officers dawdled outside and even prevented parents from entering the school to save their children.
A new House Judiciary Committee report sheds fresh light on the intensifying crisis at the southern border. The Epoch Times’ Tom Ozimek wrote on the report, which includes data that has to this point been left out of official figures. The report found that immigration courts failed to remove a shocking 99.7 percent of those previously released into the country by Biden’s administration.
Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley explained earlier remarks that the U.S. was “never a racist country,” The Epoch Times’ Jackson Richman reported.
First son Hunter Biden will sit for a closed-door deposition in front of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees on Feb. 28, The Hill reported. Biden had refused an earlier subpoena, a move that brought him to the precipice of a contempt of Congress charge.