Biden DOJ “Actively Considering” Domestic Terrorism Law To Target White Supremacists

On Wednesday night, President Joe Biden told a Congress that “white supremacy is terrorism,” after claiming that US intelligence considers it “the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today.”

Hours earlier, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) set the stage for the new narrative by telling MSNBC‘s Nicol Wallace that “The predominant part of that domestic threat ” is white nationalists, adding “We can’t ignore that because of a political sensitivity that some of the folks are part of the Trump base.”

Less than 24 hours later, Bloomberg is reporting that the Biden DOJ is “actively considering” whether to seek a new law which would allow prosecutors to bring specific charges for domestic terrorists who plot and/or carry out attacks, according to a senior department official.

“One of the things we’re looking at is would we need new authorities,” said deputy assistant attorney general for the department’s national security division, Brad Wiegmann, during a Thursday House hearing.

Weigmann added that while the department has been successful using existing laws to fight domestic terrorism – including bringing charges for offenses involving weapons or explosives violations, hate crimes and arson, there have been more than 430 arrests made in connection with the Jan. 6 assault on the US Capitol “carried out by extremist supporters of then-President Donald Trump” (as Bloomberg puts it).

The FBI has warned that domestic violent extremists pose a heightened threat for carrying out attacks in the U.S. in the near future, with white supremacists being the most lethal threat.

…

Currently, no U.S. law lets the government designate domestic extremists as terrorists or bring specific charges for domestic terrorism. That contrasts with laws to combat international terrorism, which allow the government to designate groups and bring charges for providing those groups with material support. –Bloomberg

“The question we’re really wrestling with is, are there gaps,” Weigman told a House Appropriations subcommittee. “Is there some type of conduct that we can envision that we can’t cover or would it be an otherwise benefit in having something else other than what we’re having now?”

Read the Whole Article Here…