The FBI Came to My Door Over Three Tweets
I came home and found a card from the FBI stuck to my door. No note. No explanation. Just a business card with a name, a badge, and a handwritten phone number. I had no idea what it was about, so I emailed the agent directly and asked for clarification.
He replied and said he was looking to speak with me concerning a matter that had been referred to his agency. He asked if I had a few minutes to talk by phone or in person. I told him I was not comfortable with a phone call or a face to face meeting. I said that I would respond only in writing, and that if the matter became formal or legal, I would reply through counsel.
He accepted that. Then he told me the reason for the visit. He said that some tweets of mine had been referred to the FBI through an anonymous tip. Specifically, he quoted one tweet that said we will need to go after every single ICE and DHS agent involved in these raids. He also said there were one or two other tweets but he did not specify what they were. I asked him to provide all of the tweets being referenced so that I could respond to everything at once.
He then confirmed there were three tweets in total. The first was the ICE and DHS post. The second said I mean it is all fair game now, which he believed referred to the recent assassination of two lawmakers in Minnesota. The third said 8647 suck it James, which he interpreted as a reply to someone named James Stewart.
Let us be honest. I was contacted by a federal agent over three tweets. Not over threats. Not over criminal content. Not over instructions to commit a crime. But over political opinion, sarcasm, and a number that conservative influencers have used openly for years. If 8647 is now considered dangerous, then maybe the Bureau should have started with Jack Posobiec, with conservative meme accounts, or with the stores that have sold 8645 and 8647 merchandise online for years. But we all know that is not what happens.
I responded with full clarity. I stated there was no intent of violence behind any of the three tweets. The ICE and DHS tweet was about legal accountability. I said go after because I believe that once Donald Trump is no longer in power, the agents involved in unconstitutional raids and violations of habeas corpus should be investigated and held accountable through proper legal channels. That is not a threat. That is not violence. That is due process.
The second tweet was sarcasm. It was a reaction to a political murder and a broken system. It was not a call to anything. The third tweet was a snarky reply to a troll. The number 8647 has been used all over social media. If that number is now being redefined as threatening, then let us apply that rule across the board. But we all know it will not be applied that way.
I also reminded the agent of the Brandenburg standard. For any speech to be considered incitement, it must be both intended to cause imminent lawless action and likely to result in it. None of my tweets meet that test. If they did, then Chaya Raichik should be visited every time a bomb threat is called in to a school, library, or hospital after one of her posts. But she is not. That double standard is obvious and intentional.
If the FBI is concerned about the rise in hostility toward law enforcement, they should start by asking why it is happening. It is not coming from people like me posting political commentary. It is coming from the rhetoric of Donald Trump, congressional Republicans, and the people he has empowered. It is coming from years of ICE and DHS agents violating people’s rights without accountability. If the Bureau wants to ask questions, they should be asking their own leadership. They should be asking Kash Patel.
I told the agent there was no threat implied in any of my tweets. I asked him if that was all he needed. He replied by saying that yes, that was all he needed, and that he hoped I would have a good weekend.
That is how this ended. But I want people to understand what really happened here. A U.S. citizen had a federal agent show up at his door over tweets that were political, protected, and nonviolent. I cooperated. I responded professionally. But I should not have had to. If a tweet can lead to a visit, then free speech is not protected in practice. It is only protected if no one complains.
This is not about safety. This is not about preventing violence. This is about power. This is about message control. I am not going to stay quiet about it.
Want to publish your own Article?
Upgrade to Premium+