A rogue politicized FBI is much more like the old East German Stasi

FBI Whistleblowers: Threat Tags Were Used to Target Conservatives

By Eric Lendrum

March 8, 2023

In the latest stunning testimony from whistleblowers at the FBI, it has been alleged that the bureau actively used intelligence threat tags to label multiple groups of conservative activists as potential domestic terror threats.

According to Just The News, one such whistleblower told the House Judiciary Committee over the weekend that a terrorist threat tag originally created to target far-left activists who threatened conservative Supreme Court justices after the overturning of Roe v. Wade was ultimately flipped to the opposite purpose, and instead became a marker for pro-life activists that the FBI considered dangerous for simply protesting at abortion clinics.

Whistleblower Garret O’Boyle told the committee that the threat tag “THREATTOSCOTUS2022” was created so that the bureau could “look into … pregnancy centers.” However, O’Boyle was then instructed to talk to a pro-life informant “about the threats to the Supreme Court.”

“I was like, ‘why would this person know about those threats? He’s pro-life.’ Like, he’s not the one going and threatening the Supreme Court Justices,” O’Boyle explained in his testimony, before going on to admit that he was never once asked to look into actual acts of domestic terrorism that were carried out against pro-life pregnancy centers or churches, many of which were violently attacked after the Supreme Court’s decision was made final.

Similar threat tags were used to label as possible domestic terrorists several other conservative affiliations, including parents who protested far-left, race-baiting, and overtly sexual curriculum at public schools, as well as American Catholics who attend Latin Mass.

O’Boyle also detailed how the FBI asked him to “divide one domestic terrorism case into four separate cases” in order to make it seem like he had a bigger caseload.

“It was one case, but the FBI had me open up four different cases,” O’Boyle explained, “because they had me open a case for every individual that I had an articulable, factual basis that there may have been potential Federal law being violated.”