That would be the "command and control elements" of the Republican party.

Nothing to see here, just a suggestion that the party in power use the levers of law enforcement to attack political opponents.

It's sort of like a Latin American revolution only without the cool hats.

Keep in mind, this is a former assistant director of the FBI, a member of the "deep state" if you will. You don't need to believe in vast organized conspiracies to believe that there is a powerful perma-bureaucracy in Washington with interests that don't align with yours.

And they have guns and badges.

Pay attention to how he assembles the pieces in a purely clinical manner as if this is all perfectly normal. Breezing through them quickly might even fool sincere people of good-will into thinking it's something other than a politically motivated attack on opponents.

We aren't gong to breeze through it quickly.

"[FBI Director] Chris Wray testified publicly on the Hill that what happened on January 6 was domestic terrorism."

This is stated as fact because another member of the perma-bureaucracy says it is.

Wray is not some independent arbiter of truth and justice. He's part of the problem. While he spent 2005 to 2016 in private law practice, he is nonetheless part of an elite establishment, having attended The Buckley School, a private boys school where tuition currently runs north of fifty grand a year and later The Phillips Academy, a private boarding school that is even more expensive. That was followed by Yale, and long stints in the Department of Justice.

The status quo has been very good to Wray.

We can disagree on how we interpret what happened on January 6. I was certainly appalled at what those people did, particularly that first wave that pushed and shoved Capitol Hill police officers and forced their way into the building breaking windows and causing other damage, and I resist dismissing the whole affair as just some innocent act of semi-peaceful trespass. It was more than that, and it was wrong.

But trying to make it out into something bigger than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined is pure political theater and not remotely supported by the evidence.

Taking selfies in Nancy Pelosi's office just isn't the same as sinking the Arizona.

In the end, the only person who was actually killed was an unarmed Trump supporter at the hands of a police officer. As acts of terrorism go, this was the equivalent of pounding your face into someone's fist. It's as if one of the 9/11 hijackers had a heart attack and everyone else just gave up on the suicide mission and instead returned to their seats to complain about the pretzels, or Pearl Harbor had consisted of an unruly mob of Japanese Zero pilots busting up some windows and then going to Chick-fil-A for dinner.

In any case, that's the setup. Define it as an act of "terrorism" and we're off to the races.

"What have we learned from our experience with international terrorism?"

Interesting question. So, what exactly "have we learned from our experience with international terrorism?"

Oh, right.

But hey, don't worry about that. He's talking about something completely different.

Probably.

"In order to address that problem, arresting low-level operatives is merely a speed bump, not a road block."

They aren't going to stop at arresting the people who actually committed crimes. No, they plan on going up the non-existent chain of command to go after people guilty of not liking Joe Biden.

And stop thinking about the drone strikes, they are absolutely not considering that at this moment in time right now presently.

"In order to really tackle terrorism, this time domestically, you've got to attack and dismantle the command and control element of a terrorist group..."

"Attack and dismantle." We're still not talking drones, right? Right?

And note, that we are suddenly talking about "a terrorist group." Where did that come from?

Just believe it, traitor.

...and unfortunately, and I know this is painful to hear,...

You can tell how distraught he is by the barely suppressed glee in his voice.

...that may mean people sitting in Congress right now, people in and around the former president.

A former assistant director of the FBI just suggested going after sitting members of Congress, duly elected to represent the interests of the citizens in their districts, for being the leaders of a terrorist group.

"That's how you do this otherwise recruitment, inciting, and cult-like leadership, that continues to recruit people to violence."

Inciting? You mean like Maxine Waters?

That was only the most recent example. You going after her?

"Cult-like leadership?"

Does anyone remember creased-pants super-buff Obama?

How about Saint Fauci?

Are we going after these command and control elements? Surely Fauci is responsible for at least as many deaths as the "Capitol insurrectionists."

Of course not, because this is not about justice or fighting "domestic terrorism," it's about using the instruments of the justice system to silence political opposition, maintain the status quo, and ultimately, retain and expand power.

In the end it's always about power.