Are They Coming For Us? -- Digby

[erronis]

https://digbysblog.net/2025/12/10/are-they-coming-for-us/

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.”

. . .