Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) has questioned why federal prosecutors declined to bring charges against a man who threatened his family when the Justice Department has prosecuted similar threats against Democrats, but the Justice Department denies there is a double standard.
Aaron Thompson, 33, of Fort Wayne, pleaded guilty to felony and misdemeanor charges in October after leaving a threatening voicemail in Banks’ office. Allen County prosecutors pursued the case and Thompson received two years’ probation, but Banks wrote Attorney General Merrick Garland asking why the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Indiana had not filed federal charges.
“I thank Allen County Attorney Mike McAlexander and Deputy Attorney Adam Mildred for taking these threats seriously and enforcing the law fairly,” Banks told Fox News Digital. “I want Attorney General Garland to explain why he ignored threats against my family but prosecuted similar threats against Democrats. This appears to be just another example of the Biden Administration politically weaponizing the justice system.”
Asked for comment, a Justice Department spokesman noted there are more than 10 indictments against individuals who have threatened Republican lawmakers, including threats against Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana).
The Justice Department “investigates threats against public officials regardless of party affiliation and has prosecuted multiple cases of threats against both Republican and Democratic members of Congress,” a Justice Department spokesperson said, adding: “Mr. Garland informed Congress that he views threats against public officials as a threat to democracy and that the Department of Justice will continue to treat them that way.”
During questioning by Capitol Police, Thompson admitted to making at least eight calls to Banks’ Washington office, saying he was drunk at the time and opposed the Republican lawmaker’s political positions.
Indiana man charged with felony crimes after threatening to kill Republican Rep. Jim Banks and his daughters
Rep. Jim Banks wrote Attorney General Merrick Garland asking why the man who threatened his family has not been charged by federal prosecutors. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
During one of those calls, Thompson said he owned a gun and demanded Banks choose between his life and the life of her daughters, of whom she has three young daughters.
“You have one choice: your daughters grow up without a father, or you grow old without them,” Thompson said in the affidavit. “… [B]Hmm, boom, you choose…”
READ: Rep. Jim Banks’ letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. APP USERS: click here
In the letter, sent in December but not made public until this week, Banks said FBI agents had visited Thompson’s Fort Wayne home to investigate the threats.
“Thompson, who previously urged his followers on social media to ‘Vote Democrat,’ admitted to threatening violence against me and my family because he disagreed with my political beliefs,” Banks wrote.
Texas man sentenced to nearly three years in prison for threatening to kill Rep. Maxine Waters
Aaron Thompson, of Fort Wayne, Indiana, called Rep. Banks’ office at least eight times in April 2023 and left threatening messages. (Allen County Sheriff’s Department)
“When Capitol Police referred the criminal case against Aaron Thompson to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, they declined to bring charges despite clear evidence that Thompson violated federal law.”
According to court records, Thompson pleaded guilty to a state felony of menacing and a misdemeanor of harassment, which is a Level 6 felony in Indiana and a Class B misdemeanor of harassment.
Banks, who is running for Indiana’s vacant Senate seat, cited public statements by Garland in which he reaffirmed the Justice Department’s commitment to prosecuting violent threats against public officials, and questioned why no federal charges had been filed against Thompson when similar threats were prosecuted against Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.
Recently, a Texas man was convicted and sentenced to nearly three years in prison for leaving threatening and racist voicemails for California Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
Johnson proposes cutting Special Counsel’s Office budget amid Jack Smith’s Trump investigation
Attorney General Merrick Garland testified at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on June 4, 2024. (AP/Jacqueline Martin)
Garland wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post last week condemning political violence and slamming any suggestion that the department is politicizing its work.
“Disagreements on politics are a good thing for our democracy. They’re normal,” Garland wrote.
“But using conspiracy theories, lies, and violence or threats of violence to influence political outcomes is not normal. The short-term political gains from these tactics will not compensate for the long-term damage to our country.”
Click here to get the FOX News app
Mike Ferrara, a partner at New York law firm Kaplan, Hecker & Fink LLP and a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, told Fox News Digital that it can be difficult for prosecutors to bring charges for making threatening statements.
“Federal threats statutes can be difficult to prosecute because they require prosecutors to prove very specific facts about the perpetrator’s intent. It is not enough to prove that someone who heard the words would have taken them as a threat. Instead, federal prosecutors must prove, for example, that the perpetrator made the threat with the intent to prevent a public official from performing his or her duties, that he or she spoke with the intent to be threatening, or that he or she knew the words would be taken as threatening by the person at whom they were directed. These proof issues are particularly complex in this case, where the perpetrator’s defense is that he or she made the statements because he or she was intoxicated,” Ferrara said.
“Of course, states have an entirely different set of statutes they can choose to prosecute for racketeering that don’t have those proof issues and may be better suited to the perpetrator’s conduct. I’m not familiar with Indiana’s statutes, but I think it’s pretty mundane and an appropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion for the federal government to defer to state prosecutors when a state uses state statutes to criminally prosecute a perpetrator.”
Fox News Digital’s Joe Shoffstall contributed to this report.
