Moriarty's Felony Charges Against Journalists Warrant a Federal Civil Rights Prosecution
Source: "Mary Moriarty hits Cam Higby and James O'Keefe with felony charges | Fox News." October 30, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
The author says a Minnesota prosecutor charged two conservative journalists with felonies for filming a test of weak voting safeguards, even though they never cast a ballot. He argues this is punishment for journalism and political targeting, and that the federal Justice Department should prosecute her for violating their civil rights.
Conclusion
The Trump Justice Department should immediately open a federal criminal civil rights case against Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and others under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 for violating the First Amendment rights of journalists Cam Higby and James O'Keefe.
Premises
- Higby and O'Keefe's undercover test of Minnesota's polling procedures (posing as a registered voter, vouching for a companion without ID, filming it, and casting no ballot) was investigative journalism, not voter fraud.
- The First Amendment protects this kind of press activity, and punishing undercover journalism with felony charges will chill future investigative reporting, especially on stories that powerful officials dislike.
- Moriarty enforces the law selectively: she sought only misdemeanor charges against the attackers of conservative activist Savannah Hernandez, yet seeks felonies against journalists who harmed no one and did not vote or attempt to vote.
- Moriarty's motive is political, namely pleasing Democratic leaders and gaining power, rather than neutral law enforcement.
- 18 U.S.C. § 242 criminalizes willfully depriving anyone of constitutional rights under color of law, and § 241 criminalizes conspiring to do so, so charging journalists for protected conduct falls within these statutes.
- Federal prosecution would deter other progressive prosecutors from using the legal system against political opponents, and equal application of the law demands it.
Assumptions
- The journalists' conduct (impersonating a voter and vouching for another person at a polling place) is constitutionally protected newsgathering and not a violation of valid election laws.
- The First Amendment shields newsgathering from generally applicable criminal laws, or at least these charges are pretextual.
- Moriarty's charges were motivated by political animus, not a good-faith reading of Minnesota law.
- The evidence meets the 'willfulness' and 'conspiracy' elements required for §§ 241/242 prosecution.
- Disparate charging in the Hernandez case is comparable enough to prove selective enforcement.
- Federal prosecution of a local prosecutor is an appropriate remedy and not itself a politicized act.