Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison yesterday declared that there are no federal grounds for prosecuting the mob that disrupted St. Paul’s Cities Church and declared the conduct to be “First Amendment activity.” Ellison not only supported the protesters as exercising their First Amendment rights in an interview with CNN, but also indicated an unwillingness to enforce state laws violated by the protesters, from trespass to disorderly conduct.

Ellison is infamous for his prior support for violent groups. When Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison proclaimed that Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. His own son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer.

A past defender of extremist Louis Farrakhan, Ellison has criticized the U.S. Constitution, arguing that “their constitution is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

One would think that a mob action against a church would be something that would transcend political divisions as a grotesque and chilling act. If you thought that, you do not know Keith Ellison.

Notably, in the CNN interview, Host Erin Burnett raised the incident due to its “bad optics” as opposed to the outrageous attack on a house of faith. Yet, Ellison was not even willing to take that lead in objecting to the simple optics as opposed to the denial of religious exercise. He insisted that this is “a First Amendment activity” and not a crime.

He is wrong. Protesting outside of the church is a First Amendment activity. Disrupting church services and abusing congregants inside the church is conduct, not speech.

Ellison is supposed to enforce state law without favoritism. Instead, he attacked the Trump Administration, saying, “If Trump likes you, you can do no wrong.” There may be good-faith concerns over critics being targeted by this Administration. However, Ellison is the last person who should raise such objections.

There is not even a suggestion of self-awareness as Ellison dismisses any enforcement of his own laws against protesters who trespassed and engaged in disorderly conduct — putting aside the targeting and disruption of religious services.

Putting aside his own refusal to investigate or prosecute, Ellison has also declared that there are no grounds for federal charges. He is wrong. There are a variety of possible federal laws that could be enforced.

Ellison actually went on the podcast with Don Lemon, who has been denounced for filming the targeting of Cities Church. Lemon seemed intent on strengthening the federal government’s case in prior statements by attacking the faith of the congregants. He declared, “I think people who are, you know, in the religious groups like that, it’s not the type of Christianity that I practice, but I think that they’re entitled, and that entitlement comes from a supremacy, a White supremacy.”

The statement mirrored that of organizer Nekima Levy Armstrong, who leads the local Racial Justice Network, who declared that the churchgoers “need to check their theology and they need to check their hearts.”

Ellison then went on Lemon’s show and insisted that there is no federal crime here. He specifically stated that the FACE Act cannot be used in the case because it only deals with abortion rights: “the FACE Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking reproductive rights… so that people for a religious reason cannot just use religion to break into women’s reproductive health centers.”

While it is undoubtedly true that the FACE Act is best known as a bar on protesters targeting abortion clinics, it expressly extends to targeting churches, making it a federal crime to “prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to … exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.” Other laws protect against the denial of civil rights.

Ellison, however, told the public that no such laws exist and that the FACE Act cannot apply to this case.

Unfortunately, this is a signature moment for Ellison, who has long been accused of tailoring criminal enforcement to political agendas.

Ellison is accused of doing little to deter billions in fraud in his state. Recently, a tape was released in which Ellison met with Somali figures later convicted of fraud and agreed with them that they needed to support “candidates that will fight to protect our interests.”

At the same time, Ellison has shown disregard for legal standards by filing a frivolous lawsuit to prevent the federal government from sending additional personnel to investigate fraud or enforce immigration laws.

Ellison is a curious form of attorney general who opposes the actual enforcement of laws. Ellison is refusing to enforce his own laws while suing to bar the federal government from enforcing its own laws.  He is akin to a doctor who opposes the actual administration of medicine.

In some ways, Ellison has proven the perfect Antifa Attorney General, a law enforcement officer who supports the mob while denouncing the police.

Ironically, Ellison has made the case for increasing federal enforcement in his state. He has shown a pronounced disinclination to enforce laws against his political allies. He has created the very vacuum that is pulling federal personnel and resources into his state.

At the end of the day, it is actually a good thing that Keith Ellison is in court opposing such federal enforcement. After all, he is the best evidence for the need for enhanced federal enforcement in Minnesota.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” It will be released on Feb. 3 for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.