It’s magical thinking on a ridiculous scale to believe otherwise
I find this comment inappropriate and offensive. Law enforcement, including on the federal level, warn people all the time that they are being looked at for crimes. Also, your statement is not factually true, Merrick Garland held a press conference a couple of weeks ago and an affidavit has been released in redacted form, so the norms you may have been used to are no longer standard operating procedure. Also, the Secret Service WAS given about an hours heads-up so they were warned before the FBI arrived.
But that really doesn’t matter to me. I do not think that such an insulting comment should be made, especially by someone in a position of authority. I understand that you disagree with my proposed suggestion, that is your absolute right, but there is no need to be insulting or to make it personal. I would appreciate it if you could contain your distaste for me or my views, or whatever has you upset. Thank you for your time.
To ask them privately is a risk as I stated myself. But if they want to try to spin it as an attempt to censure their point of view, the DOJ could make a public statement that they are concerned about mob violence and have reports that show good reason to be concerned.
"We spoke to many news outlets (including ones that have sometimes made false or misleading statements) and politicians from both parties. We shared our concerns about rioting and calls to arms. Most genuine news sources appreciated the forewarning and agreed that keeping people calm as this FIRST STEP in a criminal proceeding is conducted is wise. The accused will have every opportunity to mount a vigorous defense and this process is a long, but fair process that is only beginning.
We did mention that calls to arms are illegal and that any attempt to stir up discord, or to incite a riot is actionable. Even broadcasting others making a call to arms, while certainly news, is irresponsible and could lead to violence. Most professional newscasters and politicians agreed that calm deliberation is the best way to find a solution in this unusual situation" Unspoken part - although some may prefer to stir-up trouble.
It can as you state, certainly backfire. But if you address it first, you get to frame it as an effort to maintain peace AND to allow for lawful, peaceful protests if anyone wants to protest. State that accommodations are being made for calm, peaceful, unarmed protests because we know some will want to express their views-- we are just trying to avoid any situation where conflict and violence are the tools used to express dissatisfaction. They could even make reference to the unprecedented nature of the news and how calm is required of the nation - just like when Kennedy was assassinated. (I also personally believe that if some ordinary Joe does make a call to action – and action is taken – and someone is seriously hurt or killed – that person should be prosecuted fast and hard!! That will let others know this is a serious business.) While it would be unconventional, it is far from absurd to consider this course of action.
Do you have a better suggestion for how to proactively allow for unarmed, peaceful protests but guard against violent, armed mobs attacking federal buildings? It is not like two separate armed individuals did not mount a solo attack on the government right after the documents were seized from Trump’s property.
In addition, an entire arm of the January 6th Committee is looking at Trump and his cronies for “inciting a riot” with their words. Would you rather wait until after it happens and then work backwards again? This is far from the only solution, or even a best solution. It is a first idea to address a genuine threat in a fair and proactive manner. Even if it had never been done before it is a place to start. What is your suggested solution?