2024 Election

At Least 13 Banks May Have Worked With Feds to SPY on Transactions of Hundreds of Pro-Gun and Religious Trump Supporters After January 6 ‘without warrants’

Published on 1 week ago

In a revelation that strikes at the heart of privacy concerns among conservatives, it has emerged that at least 13 banks may have collaborated with federal authorities to monitor the financial transactions of hundreds of pro-gun and religious supporters of former President Donald Trump. This surveillance allegedly occurred in the aftermath of the January 6 Capitol riot, and reports suggest it was executed without warrants, raising serious questions about overreach and the potential violation of constitutional rights.

According to documents obtained by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, these financial institutions were asked to flag transactions that could be linked to the events surrounding January 6. The requests from federal law enforcement reportedly included looking for keywords such as “MAGA,” “Trump rally,” “DC,” and even terms associated with gun purchases or religious donations. This information comes from a report titled “FBI Bank Surveillance Program Uncovered,” which outlines how this surveillance was part of a broader effort by the Biden administration to investigate individuals connected to the Capitol riot.

The federal agencies provided the financial institutions ‘thresholds’ for which an SAR should be raise, according to Peter Sullivan, the FBI’s former financial sector liaison

The implications are profound and unsettling. If true, this means that private banking details were scrutinized without customers’ knowledge or consent, solely based on their political affiliations or exercise of Second Amendment rights. It’s a scenario that echoes Orwellian fears and one that conservative Americans find particularly troubling. The right to privacy, freedom of speech, and lawful firearm ownership are pillars of conservative values—values they believe are under siege in this instance.

The FBI, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Secret Service have all bought Americans’ data without bothering to get a warrant. Last night the Senate could have protected your rights and ensured that the Fourth Amendment is truly not for sale by passing my amendment. pic.twitter.com/8DVaRMJP9Y

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) April 20, 2024

Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, has been vocal about these findings. In an interview with DailyMail.com, he expressed concern over what he perceives as an abuse of power: “The Biden administration is using private companies to surveil innocent Americans.” Jordan’s comments underscore a deep-seated worry among conservatives—that government agencies might be leveraging private sector entities to circumvent legal boundaries designed to protect citizens’ rights.

The report further alleges that this surveillance program began under President Joe Biden’s administration and involved coordination between multiple agencies including the FBI, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and others. It suggests that these agencies sought extensive financial records from banks without establishing reasonable grounds or obtaining proper judicial oversight.

This story resonates with conservative audiences who have long championed individual liberties and warned against government intrusion into personal lives. The notion that one’s political leanings or support for constitutional rights could make them a target for covert surveillance is antithetical to their understanding of American freedoms.

The House Judiciary Committee revealed in January that officials at the U.S. Treasury circulated a memo instructing financial institutions how to spot extremism indicators like purchasing travel to Washington, D.C. or religious texts around the time of January 6, 2021

Moreover, there is concern about due process being sidestepped. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures—a cornerstone legal protection that many conservatives feel is being ignored if these allegations prove accurate. They argue that any form of surveillance should be predicated on clear evidence rather than broad-brush assumptions based on political ideology or religious beliefs.

The banks involved have not been publicly named in these reports; however, their alleged cooperation with federal authorities has sparked outrage among those who believe financial institutions should safeguard client confidentiality unless presented with a warrant or clear evidence of wrongdoing—not merely insinuations or affiliations.

????Speaker Mike Johnson defended shredding the 4th Amendment and passing FISA warrantless surveillance after a top-secret briefing with the NSA, CIA, FBI, DNI and DOJ.

Well, @RepThomasMassie was in the same SCIF as Speaker Johnson, and he's fed up with the lying.

Massie says… pic.twitter.com/S9mIHMKNKL

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 22, 2024

While some may argue that extraordinary measures are sometimes necessary for national security purposes, many conservatives counter by emphasizing the importance of adhering strictly to constitutional protocols. They fear precedents being set where anyone could become subject to unwarranted scrutiny simply because they fit a particular profile or espouse certain views.

As details continue to emerge about this alleged surveillance program, questions abound regarding its scope, legality, and impact on civil liberties. Conservatives demand transparency from both government agencies and financial institutions involved in these actions—seeking assurances that their fundamental rights are not being compromised under the guise of security.

This is only the former director of the CIA and the NSA making the allegation that sitting members of Congress are Russian assets. pic.twitter.com/asXZ1vZHXQ

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) April 25, 2024

This story taps into broader anxieties within conservative circles about what they perceive as an encroaching surveillance state—one where personal freedoms are sacrificed at the altar of control. It also reflects ongoing tensions between different visions for America: one valuing liberty above all else versus another prioritizing collective security potentially at liberty’s expense.

As investigations into these allegations proceed, many will be watching closely for answers—and assurances—that America remains a nation where individual rights are not only proclaimed but also protected against unwarranted intrusion by any entity wielding power.