>>> "THE WASHINGTON POST" IS
REPORTING IN FEDERAL OFFICIALS ARE ARGUING INTERNALLY THAT, OF
ARE ARGUING INTERNALLY THAT, OF
THE ESTIMATED 800
INSURRECTIONIST
INSURRECTIONISTS -- THE POST
CALLS IT, QUOTE, A POLITICALLY
LOADED PROPOSITION, BUT ONE
ALERT TO THE PRACTICAL CONCERN
THAT HUNDREDS OF SUCH CASES
COULD SWAMP THE LOCAL
COURTHOUSE, WHILE OTHER FBI
AGENTS HAVE PUSHED BACK FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY, WITH, QUOTE, THE
FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW.
JOINING OURS CONVERSATION IS
FRANK FUGLUSI.
AND, WAIT FOR IT, AUTHOR OF THE
NEW BOOK "THE FBI WAY."
.
FRANK, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS
WAIVERING ON CHARGES, BUT I WANT
TO UNDERSTAND THE LIMITATIONS OF
THE LAW.
I SAW SOMETHING YOU SAID FRIDAY
NIGHT WITH BILL MAHER, AND I
WANT TO PUSH ON THIS.
WHAT ARE THE DEFICIENCIES IN
LAWS WHICH SEEM TO BE AN
APPROPRIATE WAY TO CHARGE SOME
OF THESE INDIVIDUALS?
>> SO HERE’S THE BAROMETER LINE.
THERE’S NO DISTINGUISHES IN
DOMESTIC TERRORISM LAWS, BUT
THERE ARE NONE.
I’M GOING TO BE ON THIS SOAPBOX
FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
WE DON’T HAVE A LAW AGAINST
DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
THAT’S WHY YOU’RE SEEING THEM
ARRESTED FOR THINGS LIKE
TRESPASS, ASSAULT, THEFT OF A
LAPTOP OR THEFT OF A PODIUM.
NONE OF THOSE CHARGES REFLECT
THE GRAVITY OF WHAT HAPPENED.
WE HAVE A NICE NEAT SET OF LAWS
FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.
IF YOU CHANGE THE RELIGION OF
THOSE GOING INTO THE BUILDING ON
JANUARY 6th, TO MAKE THESE
ISLAM, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE
HAD A LAW THAT WOULD SENTENCE
THEM 20 YEARS TO LIFE.
THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AND NEEDS
TO CHANGE QUICKLY.
FRANK, WHAT DOES THAT DEBATE
LOOK LIKE?
ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT, YOU
KNOW, A LOT OF THE LAWS WE HAVE
FOR PROSECUTING FOREIGN
TERRORISTS, AND AS YOU SAID,
THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH A CERTAIN
FAITH, CAME AFTER 9/11,
SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF BOTH
PARTIES, FOR BETTER OR FOR
WORSE.
YOU KNOW HAVE GOT SOME MEMBERS
OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATE WHO
WERE ON THE SIDE OF TRUMP AND
HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN FORCEFUL IN
CALLING FOR A CHANGE IN LAWS.
I HAVEN’T SEEN THEM IF THEY’VE
BEEN CALLING FOR HARSHER
CHARGES, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT
DEBATE IF IT ISN’T JOINED BY
BOTH PARTIES?
>> SO HERE’S THE THING.
THERE HAVE BEEN DOMESTIC TERROR
BILLS PROPOSED, BIPARTISAN
FASHION THROUGH THE YEARS,
INCLUDING ONE BY ADAM SCHIFF,
ONE BY MARTHA McSALLY.
THEY ROUTINELY GET SHOT DOWN.
THE PARTICULAR ONE I’M REFER TO
WAS SHOT DOWN BY SENATOR RON
JOHNSON.
THEY JUMP IMMEDIATELY FROM
PASSING A LAW WITH STRICT
CONSEQUENCES TO WE DON’T WANT
PEOPLE SPYING ON AMERICANS.
THIS WILL RESULT IN SPYING ON
AMERICANS.
I SAY THAT’S WRONG.
I SAY WE CAN DO THIS RIGHT.
I’M NOT SAYING WE NEED MORE
INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES IN
SPYING ON AMERICANS.
LET’S JUST START WITH A LAW THAT
SAYS IF YOU MEET THE DEFINITION
OF DO METZ IG TERRORISM, WHICH,
BY THE WAY, WE HAVE ON THE
BOOKS, THEN WE’RE GOING TO
ENHANCE THE SENTENCE OR WEE
GOING TO HAVE A LOT TO POINT TO.
WE DEFINE DOMESTIC TERRORISM IN
THE LAW, WE DON’T HAVE A LAW
AGAINST IT.
>> WITH THAT UNDERSTOOD AND
STIPULATED, WHAT ARE THE CHARGES
AVAILABLE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR
THE INSURRECTIONISTS.
>> MANY OF WHAT WHAT WE’RE
SEEING EAR EVEN ASSAULT ON A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BUT WHEN
YOU ROB A BANK, WE DON’T ARREST
YOU FOR TRESPASS IN THE BANK.
WE ARREST YOU FOR BANK ROBBERY.
WHY?
YOU COMMITTED A CRIME AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT.
SOMEONE TRIED TO STEAL OUR