Democrats Exhibit Amnesia About Biden-Era Lawfare

[Independent thinker]

Found this article today. It explains things pretty good.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/10/21/democrats_exhibit_amnesia_about_biden-era_lawfare.html

 

[Marener]

Democrats who denounce federal indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James as unprecedented weaponization of the Justice Department exhibit amnesia about the norm-eviscerating, undemocratic lawfare they launched during the Biden administration.

The norm is that the president doesn't hire and fire prosecutors specifically for the reason of going after his political enemies. Trump broke that norm.

A federal grand jury in Virginia indicted Comey last month for lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding by “willfully and knowingly” lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he testified that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” concerning the FBI’s 2016 investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email for confidential information.

A 2018 inspector general report suggests that the main factual dispute may be whether Comey authorized, or was merely informed of, the leaks.

This has nothing to do with the case against Comey. The supposed authorized leak they're trying to prosecute isn't McCabe. Also, the IG report says that Comey's version of the truth is more believable than McCabe.

Documents published by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA director John Ratcliffe, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley show that while serving as Barak Obama’s FBI director and then Trump’s first FBI director, Comey used the Steele dossier, which he knew to be unsubstantiated Clinton campaign disinformation, to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, doctor an intelligence assessment to falsely claim the purpose of Russian interference in the 2016 election was to benefit Trump, and entrap Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Tuli Gabbard is politicizing the DNI. A lot of Republicans saying things about the investigation isn't really a unbiased investigation.

Grassley also issued reports establishing that Comey gave Clinton special treatment during the investigation of her emails and intended to exonerate her even before her FBI interview.

If you don't have a case going into the interview, you aren't going to have a case coming out of the interview. You don't think Clinton is just going to admit to crimes, do you?

This month, Letitia James was indicted for filing a fraudulent mortgage application that described an investment property she was purchasing in Norfolk, Virginia, as her second home. By doing so, she allegedly reduced her interest and fees by $18,933 over the life of the loan.

Lots of reason to doubt the indictment is illegitimate. For example, the rent she got for the house is quite modest. NY Times is reporting that her grand niece lives there now, not a renter.

James ran for Attorney General in New York on the promise that she would “get Trump.” When she was unable to find grounds to pursue criminal charges, she made unprecedented use of a consumer fraud law to pursue Trump for allegedly defrauding Deutsche Bank by overstating the value of Mar-a-Lago. Judge Arthur Engoron implausibly found that Mar-a-Lago’s $18 million tax assessment was its true value. Though Deutsche Bank officials testified they were not defrauded, lost no money, and would happily again work with Trump, Engoron banned the Trump family from doing business in New York, and imposed a penalty that, with interest, topped $500 million.

James vigorously sought to execute the judgement and foreclose on Trump’s properties. An appellate court stepped in, reducing Trump’s appeal bond to $175 million, and later throwing out the financial penalty.

Trump overstated the value of his property by hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Huge sums. That's just a face. The best defense Trump has is that "everyone does it", which might be true.

Both indictments were secured by former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan, appointed to serve as interim U.S. attorney in Virginia when experienced prosecutor Erik Seibert declined to pursue the cases, and came just days after Trump posted a caustic text on Truth Social directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey and James.

She's almost certainly illegally appointed. Firing prosecutors who don't indict your enemies is just not normal and hopefully never will be.

Democrats have been more muted about last week’s indictment in Maryland of former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton for mishandling classified information.

The indictment of Bolton was handled FAR differently and when we got to see the case, it looks really bad for him. So they're muted because the facts differ. That's how people are supposed to operate.

I previously wrote about Democrats’ hypocrisy in objecting to investigations of their colleagues who engaged in lawfare against Trump and his supporters, though I cautioned the administration against prosecutions based on laws that are not traditionally enforced.

No one is being investigated for "lawfare". They're being investigated for basically anything they can find to punish them.

The facts suggest the three cases are indeed retribution. That does not void the indictments. Every lawyer is taught that the purpose of criminal justice is rehabilitation, retribution, and deterrence. Rather, the issue is whether these are selective prosecutions of laws that are not enforced against others. That is difficult to establish, particularly for these laws and by officials who hold a public trust.

The purpose of criminal justice is not retribution. Damn, that's really pathetic. Justice is fair and impartial. Retribution is personal.

The Biden administration prosecuted former White House aides Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for refusing to testify before Congress, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for lying to Congress, and numerous Trump aides and supporters for lying to the FBI. Pre-Biden prosecutions for lying to Congress include Reagan National Security Advisor John Poindexter, Nixon chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, and baseball player Roger Clemens, among others.

And they were all guilty of doing just that.

James correctly observed that “Everyday Americans cannot lie to a bank to get a mortgage, and if they did, our government would throw the book at them.” Her alleged crime is regularly prosecuted, albeit usually when it involves larger amounts. Conversely, there are reports that James may have a history of mortgage abuse.

Even if we accept that James committed mortgage fraud, it's true that isn't not uncommon. Hell, Ken Paxton did far worse in Texas but he has nothing to worry about.

Mishandling of classified information is routinely prosecuted.

True! Which is one of the prosecutions against Trump, but that doesn't get any mentions in here.

 

[Independent thinker]

The norm is that the president doesn't hire and fire prosecutors specifically for the reason of going after his political enemies. Trump broke that norm.

This has nothing to do with the case against Comey. The supposed authorized leak they're trying to prosecute isn't McCabe. Also, the IG report says that Comey's version of the truth is more believable than McCabe.

Tuli Gabbard is politicizing the DNI. A lot of Republicans saying things about the investigation isn't really a unbiased investigation.

If you don't have a case going into the interview, you aren't going to have a case coming out of the interview. You don't think Clinton is just going to admit to crimes, do you?

Lots of reason to doubt the indictment is illegitimate. For example, the rent she got for the house is quite modest. NY Times is reporting that her grand niece lives there now, not a renter.

Trump overstated the value of his property by hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Huge sums. That's just a face. The best defense Trump has is that "everyone does it", which might be true.

She's almost certainly illegally appointed. Firing prosecutors who don't indict your enemies is just not normal and hopefully never will be.

The indictment of Bolton was handled FAR differently and when we got to see the case, it looks really bad for him. So they're muted because the facts differ. That's how people are supposed to operate.

No one is being investigated for "lawfare". They're being investigated for basically anything they can find to punish them.

The purpose of criminal justice is not retribution. Damn, that's really pathetic. Justice is fair and impartial. Retribution is personal.

And they were all guilty of doing just that.

Even if we accept that James committed mortgage fraud, it's true that isn't not uncommon. Hell, Ken Paxton did far worse in Texas but he has nothing to worry about.

True! Which is one of the prosecutions against Trump, but that doesn't get any mentions in here.

The DOJ was politicized during Biden's term to go after Trump and other Republicans.

 

[Marener]

The DOJ was politicized during Biden's term to go after Trump and other Republicans.

Who was prosecuted who shouldn’t have been prosecuted?

 

[Independent thinker]

Who was prosecuted who shouldn’t have been prosecuted?

Thanks for admitting that both sides engaged in political prosecutions, which started under Democrats. You open up the can of worms, you shouldn't complain about it when it happens to you.

 

[Frankenstein]

The norm is that the president doesn't hire and fire prosecutors specifically for the reason of going after his political enemies. Trump broke that norm.

This has nothing to do with the case against Comey. The supposed authorized leak they're trying to prosecute isn't McCabe. Also, the IG report says that Comey's version of the truth is more believable than McCabe.

Tuli Gabbard is politicizing the DNI. A lot of Republicans saying things about the investigation isn't really a unbiased investigation.

If you don't have a case going into the interview, you aren't going to have a case coming out of the interview. You don't think Clinton is just going to admit to crimes, do you?

Lots of reason to doubt the indictment is illegitimate. For example, the rent she got for the house is quite modest. NY Times is reporting that her grand niece lives there now, not a renter.

Trump overstated the value of his property by hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Huge sums. That's just a face. The best defense Trump has is that "everyone does it", which might be true.

She's almost certainly illegally appointed. Firing prosecutors who don't indict your enemies is just not normal and hopefully never will be.

The indictment of Bolton was handled FAR differently and when we got to see the case, it looks really bad for him. So they're muted because the facts differ. That's how people are supposed to operate.

No one is being investigated for "lawfare". They're being investigated for basically anything they can find to punish them.

The purpose of criminal justice is not retribution. Damn, that's really pathetic. Justice is fair and impartial. Retribution is personal.

And they were all guilty of doing just that.

Even if we accept that James committed mortgage fraud, it's true that isn't not uncommon. Hell, Ken Paxton did far worse in Texas but he has nothing to worry about.

True! Which is one of the prosecutions against Trump, but that doesn't get any mentions in here.

B.S Biden politicized the DOJ and set precedent and now you can reap the whirlwind

 

[Marener]

Thanks for admitting that both sides engaged in political prosecutions, which started under Democrats. You open up the can of worms, you shouldn't complain about it when it happens to you.

I said no such thing. All I asked was for an example of a political prosecution.

 

[Marener]

B.S Biden politicized the DOJ and set precedent and now you can reap the whirlwind

Who was prosecuted for political reasons?

 

[Marener]

Nobody! No one wants to tell us who was politically prosecuted by the Biden DOJ?

Not surprised.

 

[Independent thinker]

I said no such thing. All I asked was for an example of a political prosecution.

And then what happens, you give me your opinion?

 

[Frankenstein]

Who was prosecuted for political reasons?

TRUMP you ninny

 

[Silent Warrior]

TRUMP you ninny

You are trying to argue with a 4 year old who has his fingers in his ears saying, "I can't hear you."

 

[Marener]

And then what happens, you give me your opinion?

Of course. Then we discuss whether it's a political prosecution or not. Is that too scary for you?

 

[Marener]

TRUMP you ninny

Trump was prosecuted by an unbiased Jack Smith, not ordered to indict him by Biden.

He was prosecuted for stealing classified documents, which is routinely prosecuted as the article says and is true.

He was prosecuted for trying to steal the election. Now, that's pretty unprecedented but then again everything Trump did to steal the election was pretty unprecedented.

Doesn't seem political to me.

 

[80zephyr]

Who was prosecuted who shouldn’t have been prosecuted?

Who is being prosecuted today that shouldn't be?

 

[Marener]

Who is being prosecuted today that shouldn't be?

Comey and James. I don't have a problem with Bolton being prosecuted based on what we know but that could change.

 

[Independent thinker]

Of course. Then we discuss whether it's a political prosecution or not. Is that too scary for you?

We both have our own opinions. I'm not interested in your OPINIONS. My article in the OP speaks for itself.

 

[kyzina]

After seeing the first replier blather on in just the second post, I skimmed the thread. Now I am moving on.

 

[80zephyr]

Comey and James. I don't have a problem with Bolton being prosecuted based on what we know but that could change.

It appears that Comey and James committed crimes. Are they above the law?

 

[Marener]

It appears that Comey and James committed crimes. Are they above the law?

Does it “appear” so? I sort of doubt that. Very few facts to corroborate the allegations have been made public. For Comey, there’s almost no facts made public.