DOJ vows to press charges after activists disrupt church where Minnesota ICE official is a pastor

The attorney general of Minnesota, Keith Ellison is claiming that the FACE act (making this a federal crime) does not apply this situation because the FACE act about protesting abortion clinics. Ellison is clearly wrong. Here is the text from the actual act that shows what is illegal- note point number 2:

(a)Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—

(1)

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

(2)

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or

(3)

intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.

I'd welcome a prosecution for obstruction of civil rights--sorry, Keith, but federal law does prohibit disrupting a church service because you think someone works for ICE--but in this matter, I really think Trump has stepped in it. He's done a very broad effort, and is targeting his political opponents with the distribution of ICE actions. Classic boxing tactic of leading with your chin, really.

What he needs to do is walk it back and concentrate on deporting felons, especially violent felons, and when a "blue" state objects, just concentrate on getting rid of felonious illegals in the "red" states, and then instruct the BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) to track crime trends in both types of place--and when the crime rates drop overall where state authorities did not obstruct ICE, you rub it in. "See, when you send criminals to their home countries, the crime rate drops. Why would you vote for people who apparently want more crime in your neighborhood?"

Bert, your approach would be the way to punish political opponents by forcing them to live in a crime infested environment. MN is where I was born and raised. I still have many friends and family there who did not vote for Walz, etal and they too deserve to be safe. For a president to refuse to protect a certain segment of the population because they did not vote for him would be evil.

....is that sometimes, you've got to let the people get what they voted for, good and hard, and then you ask "now how's that plan working out for you?", when you know the answer. Then you have the political capital to change things. It's unfair, but it's how the political process works, especially in an age when most voters can't really see past the end of their noses.

This is the key problem with Trump's approach. He's trying to make big changes without getting political capital to spend.