Republicans Keep Pretending Antifa Is Equivalent to Violent White Supremacists

And other takeaways from Senators’ grilling of FBI Director Chris Wray.

John Minchillo/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Senators investigating the lack of police preparation that contributed to the January 6 Capitol ransacking by right-wing extremists grilled FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday about the intelligence the bureau had gathered, and with whom it had shared information prior to the attack. 

Some lawmakers, though, used the opportunity to question Wray about the FBI’s domestic terrorism efforts. In his opening statement, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, spent more time asking Wray about far-left extremists. “How do you plan to make your left-wing anarchist domestic extremism program as robust as your right-wing and white supremacist domestic extremism program?” he asked, after spending several minutes listing instances of violence and rioting allegedly undertaken by Black Lives Matter protesters, Antifa, and anarchists the previous summer. 

Wray sidestepped the trap, noting that the FBI doesn’t classify domestic terrorism as “right” or “left,” but rather looks at ideological motivations, such as white supremacy and anti-government or anti-immigrant sentiments. 

But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) fired back at Grassley’s disingenuous line of questioning. While he himself condemns left-wing violence, too, Durbin said, such violence pales in comparison with the spike of violent right-wing behavior America has witnessed under Trump. “Let’s stop pretending that the threat of Antifa is equivalent to the white supremacist threat,” he said. “Vandalizing a federal courthouse in Portland is a crime. It should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But it is not equivalent to a violent attempt to overthrow the results of elections, nor is it equivalent to mass shootings targeting minority communities.”

The agency’s lack of focus may help explain why an FBI memo outlining the credible threat of violence on January 6 was all but ignored by law enforcement agencies. During a Senate hearing last week, former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified that some officers in his department had received the memo, sent by the FBI’s Norfolk office on January 5, but that it was never brought up the chain of command. In fact, Sund claimed he only learned of the memo 24 hours prior to his testimony.

After more needling from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) about how the FBI monitors and assesses domestic terrorist groups, Wray made a stunning revelation: the FBI does not maintain lists of right-wing extremist groups such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or even the Ku Klux Klan because, he said, there’s no legal definition for a domestic terror group—just international terror groups. His revelation tracks with concerns Senate Democrats raised in a letter to Wray last week, accusing the FBI of “taking steps in recent years that minimize the threat of white supremacist and far-right violence.” Even Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC.), a diehard Trump loyalist, told Wray “it’s time” the FBI started to think about defining domestic terrorism organizations.

Wray described the Norfolk memo as “raw, unverified, uncorroborated” information that the FBI had gathered from online posts. The agency had shared it as an email to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, in a briefing at the bureau’s DC field office, and at a meeting at FBI headquarters that involved DC police. It also was shared through a law enforcement portal, Wray testified. But Sund, along with the former House and Senate Sergeants-at-arms Paul Irving and Michael Stenger, along with Metropolitan Police Department acting chief Robert Contee blamed the FBI for providing insufficient intelligence. 

While the Norfolk memo remains undisclosed, the Washington Post reported that it contained at least one social media thread that called for violence on January 6: “Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate