Jim Banks asks Merrick Garland why prosecutors 'ignored' Aaron Thompson's threats to the Republican rep's family

WASHINGTON, DC: The Justice Department has prosecuted threats against Democrats, prompting Rep Jim Banks, R-Ind, to ascertain why a federal prosecutor declined to file charges against a man who threatened his family. The DOJ, however, denied applying a double standard.

Aaron Thompson, 33, of Fort Wayne, left threatening voicemails with Banks' office and entered a guilty plea to felony and misdemeanor charges in October. Thompson was given a two-year probationary sentence after Allen County prosecutors pursued the case.

However, in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, Banks demanded to know why the US attorney for the Northern District of Indiana had not filed federal charges.

What did Jim Banks say?

"I’m thankful for Allen County Prosecutor Mike McAlexander and Deputy Prosecutor Adam Mildred for taking these threats seriously and for enforcing the law impartially," Banks told Fox News.

"I want an answer from AG Garland explaining why he ignored threats against my family but prosecuted similar threats against Democrats. It appears to be just another example of the Biden administration's political weaponization of our justice system," he added.

DOJ spokesperson points to prosecutions of individuals who threatened Republican members of Congress

Upon being contacted for comment, a representative from the Justice Department cited more than twelve cases involving individuals who had threatened Republican members of Congress, such as Representatives Matt Gaetz (R-Fla), Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Ga), and Clay Higgins (R-La).

The DOJ "investigates threats to public officials regardless of their party affiliation, and we have prosecuted multiple cases of threats made to both Republican and Democratic [congressional lawmakers]," the DOJ spokesperson said, adding that Garland "has told Congress that he views threats to public officials as threats to our democracy and the department will continue to treat them as such." 

Aaron Thompson made at least 8 calls to Jim Banks' DC office

Thompson acknowledged calling Banks' Washington, DC office at least eight times during interviews with US Capitol Police. He claimed he didn't agree with the Republican lawmaker's political views and that he was drunk at the time.

During one such call, Thompson claimed to be a gun owner and threatened to kill Banks or his daughter. Banks has three young daughters. 

"Here's the choice. Your daughters grow up without their dad, or you grow old without your daughters," Thompson said, according to an affidavit for probable cause. "… [B]oom, boom you pick..."

Jim Banks says FBI agents visited Aaron Thompson's home

Banks stated in the letter, which was written in December but wasn't made public until this week, that FBI agents went to Thompson's Fort Wayne home to look into the threats.

"Thompson, who previously posted on social media encouraging his followers to ‘Vote Democrat,’ admitted he had threatened me and my family with violence because he disagreed with my political beliefs," Banks wrote. "When Capitol Police referred the criminal case against Aaron Thompson to the U.S. Attorney for Northern District of Indiana, they declined to prosecute despite clear evidence that Thompson violated federal law." 

According to court documents, Thompson entered a guilty plea to both a misdemeanor harassment charge and a state felony intimidation charge. In Indiana, harassment is a Class B misdemeanor, whereas intimidation is a Level 6 felony.

Jim Banks quotes public statements Merrick Garland made on DOJ's duties to public employees

In his campaign for the open Indiana Senate seat, Banks cited remarks made by Garland in which he reiterated the Department of Justice's commitment to prosecuting violent threats made against public employees.

Banks also questioned why Thompson was not charged federally when threats of the same nature made against Democratic Representatives Eric Swalwell of California and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi were.

Most recently, a Texas man received a nearly three-year jail sentence after his criminal conviction for leaving threatening and racist voicemails for California Democratic Rep Maxine Waters. 

Merrick Garland penned an op-ed last week

Garland wrote an opinion piece last week denouncing political violence and criticizing the idea that his department has politicized its work.

"Disagreements about politics are good for our democracy. They are normal," Garland wrote. "But using conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and threats of violence to affect political outcomes is not normal. The short-term political benefits of those tactics will never make up for the long-term cost to our country." 

Ex assistant US attorney says it'd be challenging for prosecutors to bring charges for menacing statements

Mike Ferrara, a partner at New York firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP and former assistant US attorney in the Southern District of New York, told the outlet that it can sometimes be difficult for prosecutors to bring charges for menacing statements. 

"The federal threat statutes can be tricky to charge because they require prosecutors to prove very specific things about what the perpetrator intended. It’s not enough to prove that someone hearing the words would’ve perceived them as a threat," Ferrara said.

"Instead, federal prosecutors have to prove, for example, that the perpetrator made the threat to impede the performance of the official’s duties, or intended his words as a threat, or knew that the person to whom the words were directed would take them as a threat," he added.

"These proof problems are especially complicated in a case like this one where the perpetrator’s defense is that he made the statements because he was drunk," Ferrara continued.

"States, of course, have an entirely different set of statues they can choose from to prosecute threats, which might not have those proof issues and might be a better fit for the perpetrator’s conduct," he stated. "I’m not familiar with Indiana’s statutes, but if the state brought a criminal prosecution against the perpetrator using state laws, then it would be pretty unremarkable – and I think a good exercise of prosecutorial discretion – for the federal government to defer to the state prosecutors."