FBI Subpoenaed Over Analysis Reportedly Targeting Catholic Church's

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 12 months ago

   
   Once again Our FBI and DOJ appear to have been weaponized. This time this corrupted bunch is targeting Catholic Americans.
   
   "WASHINGTON (CBS19 NEWS) -- FBI Director Christopher Wray has been subpoenaed as part of a probe into a leaked field analysis involving a group of traditionalist Catholic chapels in Richmond.
   
   CBS News reports the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena for records on how the bureau handled the field analysis.
   
   Specifically, the analysis proposed developing sources within a group of chapels to look for signs of radicalization and domestic violent extremism.
   
   The Richmond FBI office reportedly suggested recruiting people in leadership positions within the churches themselves to spy on their parishioners.
   
   Chairman Representative Jim Jordan accuses the FBI of targeting Catholic Americans by using at least one undercover agent to collect information on people practicing their faith.
   
   The FBI has replied that it does not “target people of any faith because of their religious beliefs.”
   
   The analysis was initially released in January, but Acting Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs Christopher Dunham says the report did not meet the standards of the FBI and it was withdrawn.
   
   However, it was leaked by whistleblowers who said it had been distributed to FBI offices across the country before it was pulled.
   
   The House committee first tried to get information on this report in February and says what the FBI provided voluntarily was insufficient.
   
   The FBI is also reportedly conducting an internal review."
   
   Being a Catholic, I find this unacceptable, it solidifies my thoughts that this administration has well-weaponized the FBI and the DOJ. This overreach mimics the ideologies of the Communist Party.
   
   Maybe time to wake up, and consider how this act is not only unacceptable but outwardly unconstitutionally. Maybe time to take note of what is going on with this administration.
   
   If interested here are a few other good sources ---
   Christopher Ray Questioned in regard to memo
   https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/jim-jorda … ling-memo/
   Video --  https://dennismichaellynch.com/video-se … -churches/
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley … e-churches
   https://dennismichaellynch.com/breaking … terrorism/
   
   Any thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I have no problem with the FBI looking into activities at a Catholic chapel.  It would make and excellent cover for terrorism or other illegal activities.
      
      But a group of chapels?  It would defy common sense that there was a whole group of chapels, all headed by different people and all under observation by the Catholic church, all carrying out illegal activities or planning to. 
      
      I have zero doubt that our justice system has been weaponized in the Democrat war against all those not part of the party.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         I'm guessing there is a whole lot more  context to this story than the slanted bits the ny post and fox give.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Yes, it would be acceptable if the FBI had its eye on a known suspect or group in a church. Did you read the memo? IT was defiantly not about any one person or group.
         
         However, this is how this administration does things  --- accuse, go after, and then look for some evidence of a crime. It works well for this bunch. But not so well for the persons or person they go after. This is pure weaponization in my view.

         replyreport
2. 86

   Valeantposted 12 months ago

   We certainly don't mind the FBI getting sources from mosques, so I have zero issue with them trying to get some sources to combat the current wave of domestic terror that exists within the religious right of the country.
   
   The bigger question is why Jim Jordan continues to stand up for domestic terrorists in this country.  First, he gaslit the country by trying to equate people speaking up at school board meetings with those that went on to make violent threats against school board members and even their children.  Now he's trying to protect any domestic terrorists that happen to also be Catholics.
   
   As far as I'm concerned, Jordan is the top defender of right-wing domestic terror.  Not exactly a person I would ever want to be siding with or standing behind.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      And for crying out loud, could somebody find that man a jacket? He's a U.S. Senator.

      replyreport
3. 96

   Readmikenowposted 12 months ago

   Biden DOJ recommends no jail time for trans vandal of Catholic church: 'F--- Catholics'
   Biden's administration previously came down hard on pro-life activists
   
   President Biden's Justice Department offered what critics are calling a sweetheart plea deal to a vandal who admitted to defacing a Catholic church with profane graffiti, destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary, assaulting a church worker, and resisting arrest.
   
   A plea agreement reviewed by Fox News Digital shows that the DOJ recommends zero jail time for the perp, Maeve Nota, a 31-year-old transgender individual who vandalized the St. Louise Catholic Church in Bellevue, Washington, following Roe v. Wade's overturning last June.
   
   Nota sharply contrasts with the Biden administration's earlier approach of throwing the book at pro-life protesters outside abortion clinics. 
   
   "It is very clear that the Biden Justice Department has politicized and weaponized the FACE Act to go after pro-life Christians praying outside of abortion clinics like Mark Houck while turning a blind eye to violent felons terrorizing and badly damaging Catholic churches like Maeve Nota," Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, told Fox News Digital.
   
   "The Biden Justice Department tried to put Houck in prison for 11 years for defending his son while recommending no jail time for Nota after this deranged trans terrorist badly damaged a Catholic church, fought with the police, assaulted a church employee, and scared the hell out of a little old lady praying," Davis said.
   
   Nota smashed two glass doors with rocks and spray-painted the church's outside walls with messages that read, "rot in your fake hell," "kid groomers," and "woman haters," among several other messages.
   
   A church staff member was spray-painted across their face while attempting to chase Nota away.
   
   When officers located Nota, police said he used a backpack full of spray paint cans to smash the police vehicle before turning himself in.
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- … -catholics

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you --- I intend to post any and all issues where this biased administration uses clear weaponization. I am just funny about what I see as  communist tactics --- Call me crazy

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      FOX News has recently been revealed to be an unreliable source. If you use them, please include others.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         If you disagree please provide proof that what they have published is wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Are you joking?  They are currently being sued and have been proven in court documents to knowingly lie to their viewers.  That's pretty much the definition of being an unreliable source.

            replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         What was said in this link that you found unreliable? I have read so many articles on this subject.  What did you find unreliable? I will reread the Fox link.

         replyreport
         1. 97

            DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            This is why it is not worth it to search for links. Unless it is CNN or MSNBC they will not accept it. A video of Biden telling us that it was the MAGA republicans who are trying to defund the police is not valuable to them unless CNN decides to show it.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

               We have no problem with Biden calling out the MAGA Republicans for their cuts to law enforcement programs or when the leader of that anti-American movement makes calls to defund the FBI and DOJ because they wish to hold him accountable to our laws.  Those truths are not mutually exclusive to the truth that Fox has been proven in court documents to knowingly lie and deceive their viewers about something as important as the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
               
               And yet, despite Fox being shown to be that unreliable about simple truths, many continue to post their propaganda here.  Many of us will not even bother to click on those links because they have been proven to be liars.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Val, I must interject --- as I see it Fox reports all the news, they don't pick what they want to push as a narrative. They use names, dates, and present facts, as a rule
                  
                  Certainly, they have had their scandals. I have had to frequently check Fox for news, so much is not being reported on the other two cable news. I always back up what I find on Fox, before sharing it. I think it a good idea to give several sources when posting a comment.
                  
                  I am not willing to miss or have reports fall through the cracks.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                     Fox presents pieces of a story that appeal to their viewers.  They leave out relevant parts of the story .  I think Rupert Murdoch's recent testimony in the Dominion case makes that crystal clear.

                     replyreport
               2. 60

                  LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  In light of the Dominion case I thought more would begin to question Fox's credibility.

                  replyreport
            2. 78

               Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

               or The Wall Street Journal, or the Drudge Report, or the Washington Post, or the Associated Press, or the New York Times, or Reuters, or any media outlet that has not been revealed to lie to their audience knowingly, systematically, and unapologetically.

               replyreport
            3. 84

               Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

               I agree,  even if one provides clear facts from Biden's own mouth, some will not believe it.

               replyreport
4. 77

   Ken Burgessposted 12 months ago

   As Mike said, it is clear that Justice is no longer blind.
   
   Whether or not the EO's being passed by the Biden Admin are within the guidelines of the Constitution or not is one thing.
   
   It is clear how application of the Law is being used today, its choosing not to prosecute protestors who ravage cities like Seattle and Portland, Federal properties included and this example that Mike is giving, is clear that only one ideology is being persecuted while the other is being allowed to create as much anarchy and terror as they want.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Being a Catholic, I find this a clear attack on my religion.  Hopefully, many Catholics will take note, and feel the same.
      
      This administration is showing outward signs of pushing ideologies that are or should be offensive to many Americans. An Attack on anyone's
      religion is unacceptable.  My God, what evil we have in our mist.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Folks here do realize President Biden is a practicing Catholic as well.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            The reprehensible views spread by the groups listed in the memo  are hardly Catholic.

            replyreport
   2. 97

      DrMark1961posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I also remember a time in the US when the Democrats were the first to point out these intrusive government investigations. What happened? I cannot imagine a group of young people calling themselves students for a democratic society anymore, unless maybe they supported FBI wiretaps and one-party rule.

      replyreport
5. 60

   LukeCadwellposted 12 months ago

   "It’s a common refrain from some of those charged in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and their Republican allies: The Justice Department is treating them harshly because of their political views while those arrested during last year’s protests over racial injustice were given leniency.
   
   Court records tell a different story.
   
   An Associated Press review of documents in more than 300 federal cases stemming from the protests sparked by George Floyd’s death last year shows that dozens of people charged have been convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison.
   
   The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more."
   
   https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne … rioters-2/

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Your comment reeks of trolling.   To recap this thread is all about the current administration weaponizing the FBI and DOJ. In this case, have gone after Catholic churches, in my view, I do believe that Jan 6th has been and still is being weaponized to go after a current presidential candidate, but that does not fit the thoughts you shared. But Jan 6th has clearly been weaponized, big time.
      
      You are deflecting big time. Although a valid subject. We have tons of threads you could have posted your comment.
      
      HOPEFULLY, the users here if interested in your subject will put together a thread. This is not about Trump or Jan 6th.  or the crimes of "the Summer Of Love protesters that broke laws". It's about the possible weaponization of our current administration. This is one example I could provide a very long list of the many times this Administration has weaponized the DOJ and FBI.  As well as the US Department of Homeland Security.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         "But Jan 6th has clearly been weaponized, big time."  How could it not be? The darkest day in our history? It's going to come up again and again? What it can't be is minimized not matter how hard some try.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Kathleen,   I feel 9/11 was our darkest day, and we have unfortunately many more. Such as the nine children killed at their school two weeks ago. And unfortunately, I could write a book on our tragedies.
            
            I feel Jan 6th was a dark day, a very dark day. perhaps not for the same reasons as some. I feel it truly showed the world the great divide we have in America.  A divide that most likely will get much worse over the coming years. No, you are correct, Jan 6th can not be minimized. It truely showed the true hate we have in our Nation. That festered into attacking a Government seat. 
            
            I worry more about that, than anything. 
            
            The weaponization has only deepened the divide, the hate. Instead of stopping in our tracks, and asking why, and how this could have come to this --- we made Americans villains of one another.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

               Americans made villains of themselves.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  It wasn't a divide that caused January 6.  It was a large group of people that refused to accept reality and instead believed the lies of a well-known conman whose malignant narcissism dictated that he try and break the law to stay in power.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                     So, it does appear that a group of people did refuse to believe the election was not stolen and refused to accept the outcome of the election. And maybe it is or could be blamed on Trump.
                     
                     Where do you go from here?  What do you feel can be done to fix the great divide?  Do you feel all this discord will evaporate?

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                        A group?  It was like 70% of one political party that refused to accept the results of a free and fair election.  Hard to come back from a divide when you're not even in the same reality.
                        
                        It starts with moving on from media and political leaders that tell you other Americans are the enemy and that you cannot work with them.  Each side can pick the ones they believe put out that message.  We have enough enemies outside our borders to focus our energies on those issues.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                           Oh, Val, I hope the percentage is not that high... 
                           
                           I think your words are wise... Yes, you offered some solutions that are very common sense, and really not so hard to do.

                           replyreport
               2. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  That is true. And we have two sides. So, do we need a civil war?  It does seem that ideologies are far apart, do you think either side will buckle?
                  
                  Or will our displeasure with the other side come to boil over?  All our platitudes really are not sufficient to solve our problems. They sound good, but at this point are meaningless.

                  replyreport
   2. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Luke Caldwell.

      replyreport
6. 84

   Sharlee01posted 12 months ago

   Not about Trump --- But please consider, having a look see...
   
   "President Biden's Justice Department offered what critics are calling a sweetheart plea deal to a vandal who admitted to defacing a Catholic church with profane graffiti, destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary, assaulting a church worker, and resisting arrest.
   
   A plea agreement reviewed by Fox News Digital shows that the DOJ recommends zero jail time for the perp, Maeve Nota, a 31-year-old transgender individual who vandalized the St. Louise Catholic Church in Bellevue, Washington, following Roe v. Wade's overturning last June.
   
   "It is very clear that the Biden Justice Department has politicized and weaponized the FACE Act to go after pro-life Christians praying outside of abortion clinics like Mark Houck while turning a blind eye to violent felons terrorizing and badly damaging Catholic churches like Maeve Nota," Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, told Fox News Digital.
   
   The Biden Justice Department tried to put Houck in prison for 11 years for defending his son while recommending no jail time for Nota after this deranged trans terrorist badly damaged a Catholic church, fought with the police, assaulted a church employee, and scared the hell out of a little old lady praying," Davis said.
   
   Nota smashed two glass doors with rocks and spray-painted the church's outside walls with messages that read, "F--- Catholics," "rot in your fake hell," "kid groomers," and "woman haters," among several other messages.
   
   A church staff member was spray-painted across their face while attempting to chase Nota away.
   
   When officers located Nota, police said he used a backpack full of spray paint cans to smash the police vehicle before turning himself in.
   
   Nota appeared intoxicated during the arrest and was said to be angry about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe. v. Wade the week before the incident, investigators previously told KOMO News.
   
   Shortly following the event, Police Capt. Darryl McKinney told FOX13 Seattle that the $10,000 in damages fall under a hate crime statute.
   
   According to filings from early March, Biden's Justice Department hit Nota with destruction of religious property, a misdemeanor that can carry up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines.
   
   A week later, however, a previously unreported plea agreement between the Justice Department, Nota, and his attorney shows that they will recommend no jail time and three years of probation at the time of his sentencing on June 2.
   
   The Justice Department did not respond to a Fox News Digital inquiry on the recommendation.
   
   Nota's situation sharply contrasts with pro-life activist Mark Houck, whose encounter with a Planned Parenthood escort led to the Federal Bureau of Investigation raiding his home and the Biden administration wanting him to face 11 years in prison.
   
   A jury acquitted Houck after he allegedly pushed a Planned Parenthood escort during an encounter outside an abortion clinic.
   
   The Biden administration alleged Houck violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which criminalizes using force with the intent to injure, intimidate and interfere with clinic workers"  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden- … -catholics
   
   Nota sharply contrasts with the Biden administration's earlier approach of throwing the book at pro-life protesters outside abortion clinics.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Houck violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which criminalizes using force with the intent to injure, intimidate and interfere with abortion clinic employees.  I think that was clear. 
      
      Notas crimes don't fall under that act.
      Nota was charged with the destruction of religious property, a misdemeanor that can carry up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines, according to filings from March.
      This person's behavior as described in the source below indicates the likelihood of a severe mental disorder. 
      
      As always, there is more to the story than the small piece fox decides to carve out and amplify.  FACE act didn't apply in Notas case.
      
      What was the legal reasoning and details of the plea agreement? That is noticably left out of fox reporting.  That's not telling the whole story. 
      
      https://mynorthwest.com/3540282/rantz-t … -stranger/

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Here are mine.
         
         "Nota may have been experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of the incident."
         
         Really, this one sentence is sufficient to say this person may have a  severe mental disorder.   Does he have a history of mental illness or is that irrelevant?  Plus --
         
         "Houck violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which criminalizes using force with the intent to injure, intimidate and interfere with abortion clinic employees.  I think that was clear. "
         
         What is clear is he was found not guilty. Does that matter in your view or do you feel he should still be considered guilty?
         
         "Prominent Bucks County antiabortion activist not guilty of ...
         
         "Philadelphia Inquirer
         https://www.inquirer.com › news › mark-houck-bucks...
         Jan 30, 2023 — It took a jury roughly an hour to find Mark Houck, 49, of Kintnersville, not guilty of violations of the FACE Act — a federal law that makes it ..." 
         
         https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news … department
         https://www.foxnews.com/us/pennsylvania … nic-access

         replyreport
         1. 60

            LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Fox is attempting to equate these 2 cases and legally they aren't similar.  Houcks case was tried under an act that didn't apply to Notas. Each was tried under a different legal premise or circumstance.   A jury
            made the final  determination of not guilty.  The justice system ran it's course.   Did the jury make the wrong decision? That point is moot because the jury is the final word in our system. 
            
            When you go back and read the reporting from police on Notas behavior, it could certainly indicate mental illness. I don't know much about the entire case as their isn't a whole lot of details around it other than fox trying to make a comparison with Houck.   Couldn't even find the plea deal stipulations.  There's a lot more to the story than fox is reporting. This is generally the case with fox.    Linking the outcomes of Houck and Notas is a false equivalency.  That's all I'm saying . Media keeping the outrage machine going when we have much bigger issues that should have our focus. But that's the point isn't it?
            
            Gun violence continues and we have a radical judge attempting to impose a nationwide abortion ban.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

               "Fox is attempting to equate these 2 cases and legally"
               
               No, Fox is showing a pattern of behavior of the FBI/DOJ against the Catholic church as well as prolife organizations.  In that regard, these two cases are very similar.

               replyreport
            2. 84

               Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

               Again the subject is the weaponization of our current Government agencies under this administration. In this case the FBI.
               
               The subject is all about the memo the FBI put out and retracted quickly after an FBI whistle-blower stepped up and brought
               attention to the memo.
               
               IT would appear we have FBI agents that are not on board with some of the radical concepts that are being practiced in our current FBI.  Hopefully, the agency is not out and out corrupt at this point. In my view,  Their reputation has certainly been diminished over the past decade.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Are these the whistleblowers Jim Jordan speaks of? Have any of them testified before the whole committee?

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                     The whistle-blower was a Former FBI special agent by the name of  Kyle Seraphin. He reportedly obtained a leaked FBI document that outlines a plan to spy on a segment of one of America’s biggest religious denominations.
                     
                     https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-th … ncy-may-be
                     
                     Wray had the memo removed from all FBI sites.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                        So the point of the thread is to claim that the FBI is targeting the Catholic church as a whole? I'm certain there is more to this than fox is presenting or spinning.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                           Not sure what the FBI's motive was when the memo was put on their website. Certainly appears they had a motive. One only needs to look into what is being reported to make up their own mind on motive.
                           
                           I have added the info, up to individuals to come to their own views. Lots of information is being reported on this memo, and what Jordan is doing to bring it into the light of day. 
                           
                           Wray's comment  --   "Wray has condemned the Richmond Field Office memo.
                           
                           “When I first learned of the piece I was aghast, and we took steps immediately to withdraw it and remove it from FBI systems,” Wray told the Senate Intelligence Committee in March.
                           
                           “It does not reflect FBI standards. We do not conduct investigations based on religious affiliation or practices, full stop. We have also now ordered our Inspection Division to take a look at how this happened and try to figure out how we can make sure something like this doesn’t happen again,” he said.
                           
                           “I will note it was a product by one field office, which, of course we have scores and scores of these products. And when we found out about it, we took action. We’re also taking steps to reinforce with our workforce, all of the longstanding policies we have that speak to this kind of thing. We’ve got refresher training for the relevant employees, etc. And we do not and will not target people for religious beliefs, and we do not and will not monitor people’s religious practices,” Wray added.
                           https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/jim-jorda … ling-memo/
                           
                           I have made myself very clear over the past 6 years that I feel the FBI is compromised and has been weaponized by the Democratic Party many times. I feel the agency needs cleaning out, and restructuring. There is no room for politics in the FBI, IMO.
                           I am but one view. All have a right to feel differently than I do.
                           
                           Just putting it out there as a current media report.

                           replyreport
      2. 96

         Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         "In Nota’s case, a judge found probable cause to charge her with a hate crime and assault in the fourth degree. King County prosecutors expect to receive additional documents from detectives before filing charges"
         
         Houck's case was extreme overreach.  He had been charged locally and his case dismissed. Once contacted by the FBI, he said he would give himself. His attorney was going to take him to the FBI office the next day. This is when at least a half dozen heavily armed FBI came to his door, and took him from his house surrounded by screaming children and a wife who was terrified.  This was a DOJ/FBI intimidation tactic for people who are pro life. The are governmental agencies being used to quite opposition to democrats. 
         
         Start watching this exchange between the FBI and Ted Cruz in the Senate Hearing Room staring at 5:59 to see how the DOJ/FBI have become the strong arm of the democrat party.
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnZ6x3J0v40

         replyreport
         1. 60

            LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Houck was dealt with under the guidelines of the act he violated.  It did involve access to a clinic.  Are you saying he shouldn't have been brought up on charges under this act but under a different statute?

            replyreport
            1. 96

               Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

               The local judge dismissed his case.
               He was acquitted on federal charges.
               
               I am saying since he made an agreement with the FBI to surrender himself the next day, there was NO reason to show up at his home unannounced with half a dozen heavily armed FBI agents.
               
               I know this was done to send a message. You challenge pro life, you and your family will pay a price.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  A big threatening message.  Again just another fascist ideology, IMO.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Sort of seems more like you violate a law and charges are brought, you have your day in court. Is your claim that he wasn't attempting to bar access to a clinic?

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                     He was acquitted of all charges.  So, yes, a jury of his peers believed he was not attempting to bar access to a clinic. The state case against him was thrown out.

                     replyreport
         2. 84

            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Well said.

            replyreport
7. 60

   LukeCadwellposted 12 months ago

   The document in question, the one obtained by the whistleblower is titled "Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities."
   
   The FBI in Richmond discusses monitoring Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists (RMVE) and their interests in so-called "Radical-Traditionalist Catholics" or RTCs.
   
   The memo notes that FBI investigations have found that there is a "growing overlap" between the far-right white nationalist movement and RTCs.
   
   The January 23 document claims that RTCs are a small minority of the Catholic Church. They adhere to "anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT and white supremacy" ideology."
   
   Also included in the memo was a list of Catholic organizations that are defined as hate groups by civil rights advocates the Southern Poverty Law Center
   
   Looks like a "monitoring " of fringe groups who dabble in hate and certainly not a targeting of traditional catholicism. 
   
   https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-memo-catho … ed-1780379

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      'Looks like a "monitoring " of fringe groups who dabble in hate and certainly not a targeting of traditional catholicism.'
      
      Why do you have to throw cold water on the people being gaslit by Fox?  Can't they even enjoy their faux victimhood a little longer?  Geesh.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

         I enjoy knowing the whole story. I'm actually offended that any news outlet tries to pass off only the selective parts that suit their purpose of  keeping the rage machine running.
         I'm here to bring "the rest of the story"

         replyreport
8. 84

   Sharlee01posted 12 months ago

   It would appear Wray will be answering questions under oath soon. perhaps he will shed light on this report.
   
   CBS
   "WASHINGTON (CBS19 NEWS) -- FBI Director Christopher Wray has been subpoenaed as part of a probe into a leaked field analysis involving a group of traditionalist Catholic chapels in Richmond.
   
   CBS News reports the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena for records on how the bureau handled the field analysis.
   
   Specifically, the analysis proposed developing sources within a group of chapels to look for signs of radicalization and domestic violent extremism.
   
   The Richmond FBI office reportedly suggested RECRUITING people in leadership positions within the churches themselves to spy on their parishioners.
   
   Chairman Representative Jim Jordan accuses the FBI of targeting Catholic Americans by using at least one undercover agent to collect information on people practicing their faith.
   
   The FBI has replied that it does not “target people of any faith because of their religious beliefs.”
   
   THE  analysis was initially released in January, BUT  Acting Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs Christopher Dunham says the report did not meet the standards of the FBI and it was withdrawn.
   
   However, it was leaked by whistleblowers who said it had been distributed to FBI offices across the country before it was pulled.
   
   The House committee first tried to get information on this report in February and says what the FBI provided voluntarily was insufficient.
   
   The FBI is also reportedly conducting an internal review."
   https://www.cbs19news.com/story/4869980 … -catholics
   
   Newsweek -   https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-undercover … an-1793446

   replyreport
   1. 60

      LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      You may want to take a look at the likes of who were being monitored.  These are hate groups masquerading as religion.
      The FBI clearly wasn't meddling in St.Marys parish down the street.
      
      https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate … lic-groups

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         I am interested in the account Christopher Wray will offer when questioned under the path. I would hope he if anyone can bring clarity to this situation. Thus far he offered a statement---
         
         "   "Wray has condemned the Richmond Field Office memo.
         
         “When I first learned of the piece I was AGHAST, and we took steps immediately to withdraw it and remove it from FBI systems,” Wray told the Senate Intelligence Committee in March.
         
         “It does not reflect FBI standards. We do not conduct investigations based on religious affiliation or practices, full stop. We have also now ordered our Inspection Division to take a look at how this happened and try to figure out how we can make sure something like this doesn’t happen again,” he said."
         
         I think he was well disgusted with the memo, period. I assume he will be truthful.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            What's your position on monitoring these groups?

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

               I would not support monitoring these groups of traditionalist Catholics.
               
               I am with Wray --  "We do not conduct investigations based on religious affiliation or practices,"
               
               I am not sure, but I have not heard of the 12 examples you offered who have ever been involved with breaking any laws.  I do not share their views, I don't share the views of several religions. I don't feel the religions I have a problem with being monitored. Man, this sounds like a form of communism. Sorry, I am all about freedom and rights. 
               
               Do you think it is acceptable to monitor law-abiding religious groups?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  The January 23 document claims that RTCs are a small minority of the Catholic Church. They adhere to "anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT and white supremacy ideology" 
                  
                  These aren't mainstream Catholic churches as outlined in the whistleblowers document.
                  Also included in the memo was a list of Catholic organizations that are defined as hate groups by civil rights advocates the Southern Poverty Law Center.  These include the Catholic Apologetics International in Pennsylvania and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in New Hampshire. They are well documented.
                  It doesn't appear that the FBI is conducting  investigations based on religious affiliation but monitoring of hate groups with a religious affiliation.
                  I'm not for freedom and rights for  fringe hate groups.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                     I ask again --- have any of these organizations been known to break the law?
                     
                     "they adhere to "anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT and white supremacy ideology"
                     
                     Are these ideologies against the law? They certainly are not relevant in a healthy society, but do these organizations live above our laws?  Have they caused problems in their communities? 
                     
                     I would think if they were law breaks they would need to be monitored.

                     replyreport
                  2. 96

                     Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                     the Southern Poverty Law Center? Seriously? The group is a fraud. There are hundreds of articles from left and right leaning publications who say SPLC is a hoax.
                     
                     "These shameful secrets are no longer hidden in shadows. The New York Times, Politico, NPR and a host of other mainstream publications are reporting on the corruption and widening credibility gap. The SPLC dismissed its co-founder in March, and its president has resigned amidst numerous claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racism within the organization — a parade of disgraces that vividly force the conclusion: The SPLC is hollow, rotten and failing at the very virtues it pretends to celebrate.
                     
                     The criticism comes from many corners. There’s the Current Affairs editor who seems sympathetic to the center’s progressive mission but decries its “hate group” list as an “outright fraud” and a “willful deception designed to scare older liberals into writing checks to the SPLC.”
                     
                     There’s the retired investigative journalist who helped research and write an eight-part series on the center’s “litany of problems and questionable practices” in the mid-1990s. His Washington Post opinion piece reads with a thinly veiled message: We nearly got a Pulitzer Prize for TELLING YOU SO
                     
                     But perhaps most damning of all are the indictments leveled by former employee Bob Moser in The New Yorker. He remembers being welcomed to the “Poverty Palace” and recounts the heart-sinking reality of it all — being “pawns” in a “highly profitable scam.”
                     
                     https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 022301001/

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                        The SPLC certainly isn't a focal point of the document. For those who dismiss their characterization,  these are the organizations listed in the memo
                        
                        Catholic Apologetics International (Greencastle, Pennsylvania);
                        Catholic Family News/Catholic Family Ministries Inc. (Niagara Falls, New York);
                        Christ or Chaos (Corsicana, Texas);
                        Culture Wars/Fidelity Press (South Bend, Indiana);
                        The Fatima Crusaders/International Fatima Rosary Crusade (Buffalo, New York);
                        In the Spirit of Chartres Committee (Glenelg, Maryland);
                        The Remnant/The Remnant Press (Forest Lake, Minnesota);
                        Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Town of Richmond, New Hampshire);
                        Tradition in Action (Los Angeles).
                        
                        You can do the research and draw your own conclusions.
                        
                        The FBI memo focused on only a very small sliver of Catholicism; in fact, it is questionable whether radical-traditionalist Catholics can legitimately call themselves Catholic.
                        
                        apparently the  concern is that violent extremists are seeking alliances with these RTC organizations.

                        replyreport
               2. 78

                  Kathleen Cochranposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Deleted
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                     Yes, I can agree with you if there is suspicious activity observed.
                     
                     However, the Head of the FBI did not share that there was any reason to monitor any of the groups. He felt very disgusted with the memo, and had it removed. 
                     
                     He will be testifying before Congress in the near future. I think at that time we may learn more.  I am very sure if he feels there is or was reason to monitor these religious groups he will share that with  Congress.
                     
                     Thus far he has not shared anything but is appalled by the memo.
                     
                     He has given a statement.
                     
                     Wray's comment  --   "Wray has condemned the Richmond Field Office memo.
                     
                     “When I first learned of the piece I was aghast, and we took steps immediately to withdraw it and remove it from FBI systems,” Wray told the Senate Intelligence Committee in March.
                     
                     “It does not reflect FBI standards. We do not conduct investigations based on religious affiliation or practices, full stop. We have also now ordered our Inspection Division to take a look at how this happened and try to figure out how we can make sure something like this doesn’t happen again,” he said.
                     
                     To close, here is my view
                     I don't believe in monitoring a religious group unless they are breaking our laws, or have been reported for some adverse activity.  I don't agree with the religions in question in this case, as I actually don't agree with some other religions.   I don't feel our government should monitor them without cause.  For example after 9/11. I did not support any undue spying on Mosques just due to what happened in the name of the Muslim religion.

                     replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

         Again ---    I ask again --- have any of these organizations that Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out in your link been known to break the law?
         
         "they adhere to "anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT and white supremacy ideology"
         
         Are the ideologies against the law of these religious groups?   It is true they certainly are not relevant in a healthy society, but do these organizations break our laws?  Have they caused problems in their communities?
         
         I would think if they were law breaks they would need to be monitored.
         
         In my view, the  Southern Poverty Law Center is a very dishonest group that seeks to stir discord.  A propaganda group. that is a far-left group that is very biased.  They offer hate for those that need a good fix of hate.
         
         Hopefully, you can answer my questions.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            LukeCadwellposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Again,  the FBI memo has nothing to do with these outfits "breaking the law". The focus was the concern that violent extremists are seeking alliances with these organizations.  That was pretty much it.
            The SPLC was not in anyway a focus of the memo but an aside. 
            As far as the groups listed, certainly don't take their word , do your own research.

            replyreport
9. 96

   Readmikenowposted 12 months ago

   If the FBI and the DOJ were not members of the democrat party, they would do something about this.
   
   "Attacks on U.S. Christian churches exploding in 2023
   
   The number of attacks on Christian churches exploded during the first quarter of 2023, with 69 documented "acts of hostility," putting the nation on course for potentially the worst record in years.
   
   There were 53 acts of vandalism, 10 arson attacks, arson attempts or fires with unknown causes, three gun-related incidents, three bomb threats and two "other" situations, like assault.
   
   Several situations fell into more than one category.
   
   "Yet, all of these incidents represent a deeply concerning trend and have the potential to be intimidating. In response, Americans should be united in our affirmation of religious freedom and the ability of all people to worship and live out their faith freely--without fear that their church or religious community will be targeted."
   
   "Three gun-related incidents occurred on church property in the first three months of 2023, including the shooting at The Covenant School. In one incident, two adults and two juveniles shot 50 rounds from 9mm pistols at a Mennonite church building in Versailles, Missouri; the property damage was charged as a hate crime. In another incident, a late-night shooting took place in the parking lot of the Praise Temple Baptist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana, sending four individuals to the hospital."
   
   https://www.wnd.com/2023/04/attacks-u-s … ding-2023/

   replyreport