DOJ Corruption and Malfeasance


PREMO Member
FBI Agent Says He Hassles People 'Every Day, All Day Long' Over Facebook Posts

Abdeljawad told agents that she didn't want to talk and asked them to show their badges on camera, which the agents refused to do. She wrote on Facebook that she later confirmed with local police that the FBI agents really were FBI agents.

"Facebook gave us a couple of screenshots of your account," one agent in a gray shirt said in the video.

"So we no longer live in a free country and we can't say what we want?" replied Abdeljawad.

"No, we totally do. That's why we're not here to arrest you or anything," a second agent in a red shirt added. "We do this every day, all day long. It's just an effort to keep everybody safe and make sure nobody has any ill will."

Shibly says that he doesn't know which Facebook post caught the agents' attention, and that it was the first time he had heard of Facebook's parent company, Meta, preemptively reporting posts to law enforcement. Andy Stone, a spokesman for Meta, and Kayla McCleery, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office, declined to comment.*

*UPDATE: After publication, McCleery provided the following statement; "Every day, the FBI engages with members of the public in furtherance of our mission, which is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States. We can never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity. The FBI is committed to ensuring our activities are conducted with a valid law enforcement or national security purpose, while upholding the constitutional rights of all Americans."
Last edited:


PREMO Member

Here's Another Reason Not to Open Your Door to the FBI

Just yesterday, we showed you a video of an FBI agent showing up at a woman's house over a Facebook post — something code-named the "Baton Rouge Subject."

A day later we have another video of the FBI showing up at someone's home, allegedly over a Facebook post. We don't know the whole story … some people say it was an anti-Biden post angry about his allowing Israel to commit genocide in Gaza.

Whatever the reason, isn't there a pipe bomb investigation to work on? Or are we done with that?

Last edited:


PREMO Member

🔥 The Washington Post ran a befuddled story yesterday headlined, “How the FBI’s visit to a Muslim woman became a right-wing rallying cry.” I’m not sure WaPo knew how to report it, the story never actually answers that “how” question. The sub-headline added foggy context: “A viral video of FBI agents looking into pro-Palestinian Facebook posts reflects the muddled politics and social media swirl of 2024.” Only WaPo is confused.


It’s not clear whether this muslim woman’s FBI encounter was the first example, but several other similar videos popped up on social media around the same time yesterday from people claiming the FBI visited them to talk about their social media posts. WaPo’s article only focused on the Muslim woman.

The article tried but failed to generate a controversy. WaPo was shocked that some right-wing pundits stuck up for the Muslim lady. Apparently that jarred the WaPo’s worldview; it either thinks Muslims should be a secure liberal constituency happy to help censorship, or it thinks that right-wingers can’t be apolitical when defending Constitutional rights.

Second, in a reflexive spasm of journalistic malpractice, the WaPo’s story unaccountably produces no hint of the woman’s Facebook posts so that its readers might get any idea of what provoked the official visit. From what I could tell, she really doesn’t like Israel or Jewish people and tends to use angry, provocative, and violent rhetoric, and she often wishes bad things on a whole raft of folks including the American military. Ugly but perfectly legal.

Why the WaPo omitted that fact is unclear from the story.

Third, and most importantly, we have no idea what actually led to the FBI’s visit. It could be related to a legitimate terrorist investigation; maybe they are really looking at one of the lady’s similarly-angry friends. The feds might have other information justifying the visit. We just don’t know. Despite the bad apples at the FBI, and despite the pitiful explanation the agents offered, I would still lean toward giving them the benefit of the doubt.


Inarguably, the FBI has been used to intimidate lawful speech. I was invited to speak at the Moms for Liberty annual conference in Tampa a couple years back. Mainly so I could help prepare their national chapter leaders for what to do if the FBI ever called on them. It was right after DOJ head Merrick Garland identified Moms as a domestic threat of some kind, and the FBI in fact called or visited several (volunteer) chapter leaders for the thoughtcrime of criticizing woke school board members.

image 2.png

Obviously domestic terrorists.

🪖 In case the FBI is coming after anti-vaxxers next, here is a “field guide” to interacting with the FBI about your social media posts.

The basic rule is: don’t talk to the FBI at all. You aren’t legally required to talk to them without legal process (like a subpoena) or without your lawyer. So don’t talk to the FBI. This can be trickier than you think. One way you can accidentally get in trouble happens when you don’t even know you’re talking to an FBI agent. The second way — lying to a federal official — happens during your conversation with the agent.

Both ways are easy to avoid. Don’t ever talk to them unless legally required — and you will know when that is — and don’t ever talk to them without a lawyer. I’ll tell you how to handle both types of encounters.

🪖 Sometimes you might not know you are talking to an agent. An ‘act in furtherance’ is the entrapment path. Unless you are making specific threats against people, the things you say are protected by the First Amendment and can’t be criminalized. But an undercover FBI agent could try to convince you to do something, however small, “in furtherance” of a criminal act. It doesn’t take much. Then they can combine that act, however small, with your words, which are used as evidence of your criminal intent.

image 3.png

It’s not hard. Just don’t get involved in anything shady. Especially not if the idea comes from some new online contact. And not even if the act, whatever it is, however satisfying it might feel, seems distant from any actual crime. You don’t have to do the actual crime to be convicted of being an ‘accessory’ or a ‘co-conspirator.’

There doesn’t even have to be a crime! Or any real co-conspirators. Even if the rest of the ‘conspiracy’ group is all undercover feds, and even if no crime ever actually happens, or even gets close to happening, they can still charge you for the ‘attempt.’

An attempt carries the same punishment as actually doing the crime.

For example, patriotic anti-lockdown trucker Barry Croft, 47, got 19 years for co-conspiring in the Whitmer incident. Largely he was convicted for his words — “discussions” — about using explosions to divert federal officials during a potential kidnapping. Although the ‘discussions’ might arguably have been First Amendment protected, but Barry traveled to Michigan to scout out the scene. (Plus he wore a funny tricorner hat they really hated.) Regardless that the federal agents talked Barry into going to Michigan, they combined Barry’s words (talking about using explosives) with his act (traveling to Michigan) to establish the crime of attempted fednapping.

image 5.png

Most people reading this probably won’t have any trouble avoiding this category of potential risk. Just don’t do stupid stuff and don’t get involved with stupid people.

🪖 Second, don’t talk to feds especially when they identify themselves, like by unexpectedly visiting you or calling you on the phone for a chat. This second and more substantial risk of liability for your words arises from lying to a federal official. United States Code, Title 18, Section 1001, drops the hammer:

(a) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up … a material fact; (or)

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned (up to) 5 years or, if (it) involves … domestic terrorism, imprisoned (up to) 8 years, or both.

Since the FBI is within the executive branch, making any “fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation” to the FBI — even if not under oath — is a felony punishable with up to five years in federal prison (up to eight if they can say it “involves” domestic terrorism, like criticizing genderbending school board members).

Technically, section 1001 includes a “materiality” component — the lie must be somehow meaningful, not just about whether that dress makes your wife look fat — “material” is a super squishy legal term, and you don’t want to rely on the inability of creative FBI lawyers to convince a judge something you said was somehow “material.”

Not to mention the process is the punishment anyway. Even if you win your case, you still had to endure it. And unlike you, the FBI gets its lawyers for free.

But you argue, Jeff, I would never lie to the FBI in the first place. Of course not. Not on purpose. But why take an unnecessary risk of accidentally ‘lying’? Your memory isn’t perfect. And like everybody, you probably believe lots of stuff that isn’t true. And some things you think are just your opinion — like saying the 2020 elections were stolen or Nancy Pelosi is a lizardarian — could be whipsawed against you as “false facts.”

You can’t beat them. Don’t even try. FBI agents are trained law enforcement professionals with lots of practice from interrogating people every single day.

Take conservative fashion stylist Martha Stewart as an example. Martha spent five months tastefully decorating a federal prison cell for lying to investigators under 18 USC § 1001, not for “insider trading.” She was heavily fined and went to jail for stupid stuff she said:

image 4.png

Martha’s mistake was thinking she was smarter than them.

🪖 Step one. When the FBI shows up at the door and introduces themselves, you should start recording. Do not record them secretly — that’s a felony in many states (including Florida). Be friendly. Ask them to wait a sec if you need to go get your phone. Once the recording is on, you can ask a few quick questions.

This is optional. But to get some useful information for the recording, ask their names, ask for their business cards, ask what office they’re from, and ask for their supervisor’s name. Then ask, “gentlemen, what’s this all about?”

Then you should politely and firmly say “I would love to talk to you boys about this, but I want to do it with my lawyer. I’ll have my lawyer call your office and set something up.” Then say goodbye and close the door.

You won’t need to call and follow up. They don’t want to talk to your lawyer anyway. Also, there’s no reason to demand to see their identification, which can be faked by bad actors anyway. If they are pushy, or won’t go away, call your local sheriff and say there are armed men standing around in your yard. Then start microwaving some popcorn.

Here’s a quick summary of the advice:

  1. Record the interaction.
  2. Refuse to speak to them without a lawyer.
  3. Refuse to let them in the house (unless they have a warrant).
  4. Don’t go outside of the house and keep the door closed.
It’s that simple, although you’ll probably feel nerve-wracked the whole time. Odds are that, if the FBI was really there just to talk to you about your social media posts, the case ends right there.

Still, I’d suggest that if it does happen, contact a lawyer to have on standby, just in case they decide to follow up.

By avoiding talking, you’ll avoid the trap of helping the FBI turn your perfectly legal words into a crime.

A couple final thoughts. Many, if not most FBI agents are decent, hardworking professionals who want to do a good job. Even the ones at your door may have been sent there by another office’s request (like the infamous DC field office). Don’t assume the ones at your door are bad guys.

Finally, the obligatory disclosure: this is not legal advice and I’m not your lawyer.



PREMO Member

DHS Chief Mayorkas Pressed to Answer How Terrorists Were Reportedly Freed into U.S.

In a letter to Mayorkas on Wednesday, Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-TN), as well as Reps. Clay Higgins (R-LA) and August Pfluger (R-TX), who chair subcommittees, asked Mayorkas to provide them with a classified briefing on several reported cases of migrants on the Terrorism Watch List getting released into the nation’s interior.

The congressmen write:

The first case involves a member of the U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization alShabaab. According to a news report, the alien was “caught illegally crossing the southern border near San Ysidro, California on March 13, 2023;” however, he was deemed a “mismatch” and was subsequently released into the interior. Almost one year later, the Terrorist Screening Center “made a redetermination” and confirmed the alien as a terrorist member of al-Shabaab, and then Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) located and arrested him. [Emphasis added]
The second case involves a Pakistani man allegedly on the terrorist watch list who illegally entered the United States but was apprehended by the Border Patrol the following day. Less than two weeks later, the Terrorist Screening Center confirmed his status on the “terror watchlist;” however, ICE eventually released him through the Alternatives to Detention program. [Emphasis added]
In addition to these unanswered requests for information, we are now facing a consistent stream of cases highlighted in the news of aliens allegedly on the terrorist watchlist either being apprehended at the border or discovered in the interior. [Emphasis added]

The congressmen noted Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray’s testimony last month before the Senate Intelligence Committee where he warned he is “very concerned” over the possibility of human smuggling networks to the U.S. with ties to the Islamic State (ISIS).

“The Committee is concerned with DHS’s current practices in processing and releasing known or suspected terrorists encountered at the Southwest border,” the congressmen write.

Mayorkas has been accused of withholding information related to migrants caught crossing the border who matched for suspects on the Terrorist Watch List.


PREMO Member

Former Agent: FBI Taught Agents Pro-Lifers Are More Dangerous Than Islamic Terrorists

In an interview with the Tennessee Informer last month, Friend recalled his experience at the FBI Academy in 2014: “We were shown a video that was produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” The film, Friend said, “ranked people who oppose abortion, pro-life activists, as a greater threat than Islamists.”

“I don’t know if they still show that,” Friend added, “but that’s what we were shown.”

The FBI still relies on SPLC material a decade later, leading a pair of top Republican senators to demand the agency sever ties with the leftist hate group that routinely smears right-of-center associations as “hate groups.” SPLC’s false “hate group” designations led to a domestic terrorist attack in 2012 on the offices of a pro-family organization.

“The SPLC is known for disseminating its ‘hate group’ list, which contains at least 1,225 organizations, to Democrat allies in Congress, Big Tech, and woke corporations on a regular basis,” The Federalist’s Jordan Boyd reported last fall. “The activist hub recently aided the Biden regime’s quest to target concerned parents by sullying a dozen grassroots groups, including Moms For Liberty, as ‘anti-government extremist groups’ in its 2022 ‘hate and extremism’ report.”

The FBI also cited the SPLC to target traditional Catholics with counterterrorism resources, according to former agent Kyle Seraphin.

“The FBI should not lend credibility to an organization that labels traditional values as ‘hate,'” wrote Sens. Chuck Grassley and James Lankford last fall, adding “any use of SPLC data by the FBI” is “inappropriate and should be stopped immediately.”

More recently, the SPLC refused to answer Federalist inquiries about whether the SPLC would add Black Lives Matter and the Democratic Socialists of America to the list of “hate groups” following the far-left’s positive response to Hamas’s October terrorist attacks on Israel. The SPLC eventually responded to the attack, from which hostages are still being held and raped, by claiming Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinian children.


PREMO Member

FBI Interrogated Trump’s Valet Driver without Trump’s Knowledge – And Turned Ambush Interview Into Perjury Trap: Court Docs

The FBI agents approached Walt Nauta and asked for a voluntary interview under the guise of national security interest (similar to the General Flynn ambush).

“On May 26, 2022, NAUTA participated in a voluntary interview with the FBI. During the interview, the FBI explained to NAUTA that the FBI was investigating how classified documents had been kept at The Mar-a-Lago Club, and the FBI asked NAUTA questions about the location and movement TRUMP’s boxes before TRUMP provided 15 boxes to NARA on January 17, 2022. NAUTA was represented by counsel, and the FBI advised NAUTA that the interview was voluntary and that he could leave at any time. The FBI also advised NAUTA that it was a criminal offense to lie to the FBI,” according to the indictment reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.

According to the newly released transcript reviewed by this reporter, the FBI interrogated Walt Nauta without Trump’s knowledge.

“As far as [Trump] knows, I’m out jogging,” Walt Nauta told FBI agents when asked if Trump was aware he was in a secret meeting with the FBI.

The FBI agents also tried to push Walt Nauta into admitting he was more than just a cook in the Navy. They accused him of using the cook claims as a ‘cover.’

“I wish I was something – I wish I was Steven Seagal, but no,” Nauta told the agents.

The agents insisted Trump got “some stuff going on with this Russia stuff.”

Sure enough, it was a perjury trap and Walt Nauta was indicted along with Trump in Jack Smith’s classified documents case.


PREMO Member

Pro-Lifer Who Agreed To Cooperate With Biden DOJ Against Fellow Activists Avoids Prison

The FACE Act is a Clinton-era law that is frequently used against pro-lifers protesting outside of abortion facilities. Six of Davis’s codefendants, who were convicted in February, face up to 10.5 years in prison and fines of up to $260,000 when sentenced in July.

Davis also testified in a one-day bench trial for four others involved in the demonstration earlier this month. Those four — Eva Edl, Eva Zastrow, James Zastrow, and Place — were convicted of violating the FACE Act and face up to six months in prison and a $10,000 fine upon sentencing in July.

During her testimony in January, Davis claimed that she had a change of heart about attending the Carafem demonstration. She said her “rational side” was “in the toilet” at the time of her participation. She also said that she changed her mind “over time” and that being indicted by the federal government “terrified” her.


PREMO Member

Federal Agents Drag J6 Political Prisoner Ryan Samsel To The Hole and Isolation Immediately After The Gateway Pundit Releases Ray Epps’ FBI Call to the American Public

Earlier today, Alicia Powe at The Gateway Pundit exposed J6 insurrection leader James Ray Epps lying to the FBI in a leaked interview obtained by The Gateway Pundit.

After the release of this audio incriminating Epps, federal agents raided J6 political prisoner Ryan Samsel’s jail cell and dragged him to solitary confinement in the hole of the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn on Thursday night.

Epps repeatedly lied to authorities saying he was listening to President Trump’s speech at the Ellipse when there is numerous video clips proving Epps was not being truthful.

Ray Epps was directing Trump supporters to the US Capitol for hours before the protests on Capitol Hill. Epps later was one of the leading protesters who broke through the first and second set of barriers going to the US Capitol.


PREMO Member

Biden DOJ Says Droning American Citizens Is Totally Fine Because Obama’s DOJ Said So

Justice Brett Kavanaugh posed a series of hypotheticals to DOJ attorney Michael Dreeben about the scope of presidential authority, asking whether Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1976 could have been investigated for obstruction of justice “on the theory that [Ford was] interfering with the investigation of Richard Nixon.”

Dreeben suggested that particular case would fall under “presidential responsibilities that Congress cannot regulate.”

“How about President Obama’s drone strikes?” Kavanaugh asked.

“So the Office of Legal Counsel looked at this very carefully and determined that, number one, the federal murder statute does apply to the executive branch,” Dreeben said. “The president wasn’t personally carrying out the strike, but the aiding and abetting laws are broad, and it determined that a public authority exception that’s built into statutes and that applied particularly to the murder statute, because it talks about unlawful killing, did not apply to the drone strike.”


PREMO Member

DHS Says ‘Privacy Interests’ Of Illegals On Terrorist Watchlist Outweigh Americans’ Right To Know

The Department of Homeland Security denied a Freedom Of Information Act request for the data from Fox News reporter Bill Melugin, writing, “The privacy interests of the individuals in the records you have requested outweigh any minimal public interest in disclosure of the information. Any private interest you may have in that information does not factor into the aforementioned balancing test.”

Melugin said on X that DHS was citing exemptions “that have nothing to do with my FOIA request,” saying that he “did not ask for any names, IDs, addresses, anything that would breach privacy, nor did I ask for any law enforcement sensitive information.”

“I simply requested *only* the nationalities of people arrested on the list, so the public can have an understanding of where in the world they are coming from.”

On the same day that DHS denied the request, a local news outlet discovered that the administration had concealed that on May 3, two men drove a truck up to the Quantico base, gave a false reason for being there, and drove into the base despite being told not to.