FBI’s Outrageous Behavior Part 2

Dobbs was decided on June 24, 2022. The Attorney General’s statement was made the same day. Houck was then arrested in September of 2022, for acts that allegedly occurred in October of 2021. Could Garland and the Justice Department have sought out a case in which they could make an example of a Pro-Life activist?

Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano certainly believes this to be the case. During his recent campaign for Governor, the Mastriano stated that “(t)he continued weaponization of the FBI and persecution of Biden’s DOJ against ordinary Americans is an outrage… (c)itizens across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania join me in expressing our outrage at this early-morning raid executed on a young family. This show of force carried out by the Biden regime against ordinary Americans is an abuse of power that stands against the fundamental principles on which our country was founded.”

As noted by Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation, “(i)t is not a coincidence, we suspect, that this takedown of someone who, at best, committed a misdemeanor assault came almost exactly three months after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand in America. The FBI’s raid of Houck’s home was designed to send a warning to pro-life activists engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment…(t)he timing of this indictment of Houck…is suspect and calls into question the motive behind the Justice Department’s move…(i)f this was such an important violation of the FACE Act, what took the Justice Department 337 days to indict Houck? This is the simplest of simple, factual cases. Houck either pushed the escort…unprovoked, or he didn’t. Perhaps the more important number is 91. That’s how many days elapsed between the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs and Houck’s indictment…(a)nd why did the Justice Department decide to send armed FBI agents to Houck’s house in a show of force? Houck has no criminal record, is a man of faith, and is the father of seven children. He is no threat whatsoever.”

Indeed. Given these facts and the statement made by AG Garland at the time Dobbs was decided, the motivation for the heavy-handed show of force against Houck is obvious.

The Houck family has a long legal road to travel. But once passions cool, and the DOJ seeks other witches to burn, the opportunity for justice to prevail will increase. In the meantime, there is a resolution pending in the House of Representatives to impeach Merrick Garland. Dated October 22, 2021, House Resolution 743 states that “Attorney General Garland has failed to faithfully uphold his oath and has instead presided over a reckless and corrosive politicization of the Department of Justice… by his actions, (Garland has) validated the belief of many Americans that the Department of Justice has been transformed into an unstoppable, partisan, Federal weapon used to officially punish political opponents.”

Further, in July of this year, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga), also filed articles of impeachment against Garland, asserting that “Attorney General Garland has failed to uphold his oath and has instead overseen a denigration of the principles of our democratic republic by politicizing the Department of Justice, and utilitizing the (FBI) as a Federal police force to punish or intimidate anyone who questions or opposes the current regime.”

With Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, these measures have had no chance of advancement, let alone success. But beginning in January, the new Republican majority has signaled its intention to take up matters such as the impeachment of the Attorney General. Prior to the midterm, then House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) “promised…that if Republicans take back the chamber after November’s midterm elections, they will investigate the Department of Justice, telling Attorney General Merrick Garland to ‘clear your calendar…I’ve seen enough. The Department of Justice has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization…(w)hen Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned.’”

Appearing on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News, former Trump advisor Steve Bannon also predicted the impeachment of both Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. “’The whole Justice Department under Merrick Garland has become radically partisan,’ Bannon said. ‘I strongly believe you’ll see Merrick Garland impeached next year by the new Congress.’” He added that “What I want Republicans in the new Congress, is to focus on cleaning out the rat’s nest at DOJ and cleaning out the rat’s nest at the FBI.”

Whether or not these promises are kept remains to be seen. But in the meantime, the more the FBI points their rifles at Pro-Life activists and their children, and the more the Justice Department prosecutes misdemeanor assaults, the more the public will continue to call upon their Representatives in Congress to halt this blatant abuse of power by formerly well-respected, and formerly politically neutral, law enforcement agencies.

Judge John Wilson (served on the bench in NYC

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.