Is the White House Weaponizing the DOJ and the FBI Against Political Opponents?

[candycorn]

Ok . . . then the next question is why doesn't Karine Jean-Pierre not just say that?

You'd have to ask her. I imagine that she is using words you simply don't understand. Anything over one syllable and you are out gunned.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I will answer the question like your serious. Knowing full well that you will reject what I say without giving it any serious consideration.

Ok, forkup . . . I was happy to see in my notifications that you had replied to this thread, I really was. But for the sake of your own social development, you really should ask a friend or relaative to read some of your posts and give their opinion on the tone. They will be surprised I'm sure, unless you approach people in the real world also with that constant chip on the shoulder attitude.

First your clip. The idea that a White House doesn't comment on ongoing investigations was STANDARD practice until Trump. Because guess what... doing so was considered risking inserting politics into what is supposed to be impartial, namely the law. The fact that you see something nefarious in that is a problem that solely exists because YOU reject the notion of an impartial application of the rule of law.

Now that's a good argument if only Karine Jean-Pierre had made it. But she didn't say that at all. She answered with a word salad and then made the bizarre claim that it isn't a yes or no question. Why not say, "Of course not, but we don't discuss ongoing investigations?" Or she could have said, "Peter, you know we don't discuss ongoing investigations. Is that why you make up absurd questions like that, just to have a sound bite of me not answering it?"

BTW, what is your answer to that obvious yes or no question? Or can you not answer because there's an ongoing investigation?

This brings me to your premise. The way you determine if the justice department is targeting political opponents is by contrasting their treatment to that of regular citizens. So let's do that.

What would happen if a citizen NOT Trump is found in the possession of government documents you think? Would they first be politely asked to give them back? Followed by a request if it would be ok that the FBI would be allowed to look at them so the can assess what national security implications it might have? Followed by a subpoena for additional documents you might have, followed by a written statement by your lawyer that you don't have any? Followed by a search warrant finding hundreds of such documents, but not so far official charges?

Note that I didn't go into the classification levels of those documents that make it even more egregious.

So tell me what would happen to that citizen who's not Trump?

Yeah . . . there's one fatal flaw in that part of your argument. Well several, but let's focus on one:

We know already KNOW how the FBI treated a citizen who's not Trump in possession of government documents. She was allowed to keep them on a server in her bathroom, slowly negotiate through her lawyers for what to show to the FBI and what not to show to the FBI, determine on her own what was personal and what was business related, and destroy the documents that she chose not to give the FBI with a program called "Bleachbit," and destroy her government issued devices off with hammers.

All the while, the FBI was conspiring internally to make sure that she wasn't indicted, with the stated reason that there was an election coming up and it "matters because it MATTERS."

If you are Donald Trump, or a person the FBI/DOJ wants to use to get Trump, you will be treated very differently. The FBI will lie to you, lie about you, falsify documents about you, trick you into not getting a lawyer in a situation that a suspected child rapist would be immediately provided one, and threaten to prosecute your kids if you don't cooperate. Asking whether Trump is treated differently tells me that you insulate yourself from all but the most radical left media.

A second flaw is that Donald Trump was president, and every single president ever has taken documents from the White House. So, you may want to look at how the FBI has treated presidents who're not Trump. The president has the one and only power to classify and declassify things, as the Supreme Court ruled long before Trump.

Maybe you think presidents should not be able to do that. You could make an argument that would convince me of that without much effort. Why do the most senior government officials get to convert government documents to their personal property? I don't know, but they always have been able to do that. Biden did that with records of his alleged rape, should he get an FBI raid on his beach house?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, the soft coup attempt is much more complicated and devious, with the fake elector scheme, Marshall law proposals, military confiscating voting machines, and corrupt legislator scheme, and corrupt congressional help, and the 1/6 riot, etc etc etc to illegally STEAL the election from the American voters and Joe Biden.....this was an attack from the enemy from within, on our entire Democratic Republic!

You are right though, that the stealing of govt top secret compartmented documents, and bringing them to an unsecure place, and refusing to return them all when asked and subpoenaed, is a cut and dry....easy case.

Oooh . . . forkup is this the kind of thing that makes you cling to your liberal ideas? I implore you, young sir! Don't look to feminists to teach you how to be a man. She may come off like a loving mommy praising you for thinking correctly, but she will have you in a dress if you let her.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not really sure about that. First off, absconding with special acces intelligence is no small matter, ex-president or not. And it seems to me pretty cut and dry, in terms of it being a clear violation of law and establishing intent. Jan 6th was worse but I think a bit murkier in terms of establishing a connection between Trump and the events. Perverse as that is.

That's a word salad to say "Trump did nothing illegal on Jan 6th."

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump stole documents dealing with nuclear weapons.

His supporters keep saying he "declassified" these documents, but then again his supporters are also morons.

Nuclear documents can't be declassified by the President. The President's authority over classification was created by executive order. Classification of nuclear documentation was established by law. The President has no authority to declassify any documents dealing with nuclear weapons or nuclear power, or the development or security of either. They have to be jointly declassified by the DOD, DOE, and NSA.

The president's authority over classification was established by the Supreme Court. That precedent cannot be overturned by a law, because the constitution is the supreme law.

 

[22lcidw]

You'd have to ask her. I imagine that she is using words you simply don't understand. Anything over one syllable and you are out gunned.

Prog press secretaries are minor league to what Repub ones put up with. Only their in-your-face insults makes them look superior. One of the many reasons we are in decline.

 

[candycorn]

Prog press secretaries are minor league to what Repub ones put up with. Only their in-your-face insults makes them look superior. One of the many reasons we are in decline.

Yep. She's a better person than you'll ever be. Get used to it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The mystery is, why Trump? Why a man with inherited billions? Why an extreme narcissist who doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone except himself?

It surprises me that this is such a mystery to TDS folks. Two words: America First.

After decades of America hating Democrats and New World Order Republicans it is refreshing to have a president that puts America First just like the leaders of any other country not mired in Corruption put their countries first.

 

[forkup]

Ok, forkup . . . I was happy to see in my notifications that you had replied to this thread, I really was. But for the sake of your own social development, you really should ask a friend or relaative to read some of your posts and give their opinion on the tone. They will be surprised I'm sure, unless you approach people in the real world also with that constant chip on the shoulder attitude.

Now that's a good argument if only Karine Jean-Pierre had made it. But she didn't say that at all. She answered with a word salad and then made the bizarre claim that it isn't a yes or no question. Why not say, "Of course not, but we don't discuss ongoing investigations?" Or she could have said, "Peter, you know we don't discuss ongoing investigations. Is that why you make up absurd questions like that, just to have a sound bite of me not answering it?"

BTW, what is your answer to that obvious yes or no question? Or can you not answer because there's an ongoing investigation?

Yeah . . . there's one fatal flaw in that part of your argument. Well several, but let's focus on one:

We know already KNOW how the FBI treated a citizen who's not Trump in possession of government documents. She was allowed to keep them on a server in her bathroom, slowly negotiate through her lawyers for what to show to the FBI and what not to show to the FBI, determine on her own what was personal and what was business related, and destroy the documents that she chose not to give the FBI with a program called "Bleachbit," and destroy her government issued devices off with hammers.

All the while, the FBI was conspiring internally to make sure that she wasn't indicted, with the stated reason that there was an election coming up and it "matters because it MATTERS."

If you are Donald Trump, or a person the FBI/DOJ wants to use to get Trump, you will be treated very differently. The FBI will lie to you, lie about you, falsify documents about you, trick you into not getting a lawyer in a situation that a suspected child rapist would be immediately provided one, and threaten to prosecute your kids if you don't cooperate. Asking whether Trump is treated differently tells me that you insulate yourself from all but the most radical left media.

A second flaw is that Donald Trump was president, and every single president ever has taken documents from the White House. So, you may want to look at how the FBI has treated presidents who're not Trump. The president has the one and only power to classify and declassify things, as the Supreme Court ruled long before Trump.

Maybe you think presidents should not be able to do that. You could make an argument that would convince me of that without much effort. Why do the most senior government officials get to convert government documents to their personal property? I don't know, but they always have been able to do that. Biden did that with records of his alleged rape, should he get an FBI raid on his beach house?

They will be surprised I'm sure, unless you approach people in the real world also with that constant chip on the shoulder attitude.

In our very first conversation, I set out how I approach people on this board. I'll do so again. Everybody here as far as I'm concerned starts with my respect. This is how I approach them and how I speak to them. Once I start feeling they are not arguing in good faith, and/or show a lack of intellectual honesty this changes. You lost my respect in our first conversation, and have not shown any sign of actually being on the level in the subsequent ones. So I won't pretend otherwise.

Now that's a good argument if only Karine Jean-Pierre had made it.

She did, starts at something like 40 seconds, and continues throughout the first clip that contains the question you take umbrage with. Then it became edited shown by the fact that all of a sudden she's wearing different clothes. Did you miss that or are simply showing again why I don't think you have intellectual honesty?

BTW, what is your answer to that obvious yes or no question?

No

We know already KNOW how the FBI treated a citizen who's not Trump in possession of government documents. She was allowed to keep them on a server in her bathroom, slowly negotiate through her lawyers for what to show to the FBI and what not to show to the FBI

You are wrong on the particulars and are undermining your own point. Clinton was investigated for over a year for her handling of government documents, an investigation that was reopened a few weeks before the general election BY THE FBI while being the Democratic nominee for the presidency under a Democratic President. An investigation that almost certainly cost her the presidency.

Trump is been under investigation for over a year after he failed to turn in documents to the national archives so they can distinguish personal from government property, even after a first summons, a subpoena, and a lie by his lawyers.

So pray tell how you get from that that that Trump is being treated differently from Hillary? Looking at it in the best possible light for Trump the best argument you can make is that Trump is being treated the same as Hillary.

A second flaw is that Donald Trump was president, and every single president ever has taken documents from the White House. So, you may want to look at how the FBI has treated presidents who're not Trump.

Sure, find me 1 example of a president keeping and holding classified documents as he leaves the White House. By the way, a president CAN'T BY LAW claim documents generated by government agencies as personal property. The presidential record act is specific on the front.

The president has the one and only power to classify and declassify things

Also wrong, for instance, classified information pertaining to nuclear information is arranged by statute and does not have the president as its arbiter. Can Trump Just Declare Nuclear Secrets Unclassified?

Also, presidents have the authority to declassify. Ex-presidents don't, and pretending YOU believe for a second that Trump actually declassified all documents he took when he was president, without there being a shred of documentation attesting to the fact insults both our intelligence.

 

[Lakhota]

Is the Pope Catholic?

Apparently not.

 

[forkup]

That's a word salad to say "Trump did nothing illegal on Jan 6th."

No that is me acknowledging that there's a difference between doing something unethical, something illegal, and something that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Those 3 things are not always the same. I don't doubt that Trump did something unethical on Jan 6th, I'm pretty sure he did something illegal, but I'm less convinced that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not a "word salad" it's an honest opinion based on the facts as they are known to me. I'm not prone to wishful thinking, or changing my mind on the basis of political affiliation.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

It surprises me that this is such a mystery to TDS folks. Two words: America First.

After decades of America hating Democrats and New World Order Republicans it is refreshing to have a president that puts America First just like the leaders of any other country not mired in Corruption put their countries first.

Typical Trump Republican, you completely avoided the important part of my report concerning Trump and went directly to a trick question which you answered with B.S.

You illustrated why members of Trump's cult avoid Trump. They have to. Moreover, they are doing exactly what Vladimir Putin wants them to do.

The [Republican] Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...rms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171

 

[Seymour Flops]

Typical Trump Republican, you completely avoided the important part of my report concerning Trump and went directly to a trick question which you answered with B.S.

You illustrated why members of Trump's cult avoid Trump. They have to. Moreover, they are doing exactly what Vladimir Putin wants them to do.

The [Republican] Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday reaffirmed its support for the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...rms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171

I don't doubt the Russian government interfered in every US election since they first formed the Soviet intelligence apparat. That's a "water is wet!" type non-story.

 

[Leviticus]

Another one who doesn't know anything about martial law!

The president's authority over classification was established by the Supreme Court. That precedent cannot be overturned by a law, because the constitution is the supreme law.

It was established by executive order, and the supreme court held that that order was constitutional.

However, the Atomic Energy Act, which established that classification of nuclear documents can only be changed by a joint decision by multiple departments and agencies, is also constitutional. It effectively took all documentation dealing with nuclear energy and weapons away from the direct authority of the Office of POTUS and placed it directly under the authority of multiple departments which work together.

The original EO that was written states that the president will have the authority to declassify any and all classified documents under the direct authority of their office.

The AEA took documents dealing with nuc,lear energy out of the President's direct authority. Both are constitutional.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It was established by executive order, and the supreme court held that that order was constitutional.

However, the Atomic Energy Act, which established that classification of nuclear documents can only be changed by a joint decision by multiple departments and agencies, is also constitutional. It effectively took all documentation dealing with nuclear energy and weapons away from the direct authority of the Office of POTUS and placed it directly under the authority of multiple departments which work together.

The original EO that was written states that the president will have the authority to declassify any and all classified documents under the direct authority of their office.

The AEA took documents dealing with nuc,lear energy out of the President's direct authority. Both are constitutional.

The ruling said nothing about an exception.for nuclear documents nor about an executive order. The court said the president has sole authority over classification and declassification.

If the FBI brought documents to plant, no doubt they were nuclear documents in hopes people would accept your argument. Rachel Maddow will but not the court.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

I don't doubt the Russian government interfered in every US election since they first formed the Soviet intelligence apparat. That's a "water is wet!" type non-story.

Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of putting Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

And Trump controlled the Russian government at the time?

 

[Seymour Flops]

In our very first conversation, I set out how I approach people on this board. I'll do so again. Everybody here as far as I'm concerned starts with my respect. This is how I approach them and how I speak to them. Once I start feeling they are not arguing in good faith, and/or show a lack of intellectual honesty this changes. You lost my respect in our first conversation, and have not shown any sign of actually being on the level in the subsequent ones. So I won't pretend otherwise.

Which is fine. That "I've lost all respect for you!" with the expectation of causing angst for the person it is said to, is a teenage device to derail a conversation with an adult. You may remember that I make my living helping behaviorally challenged teenagers learn to better themselves. Such tricks do not phase me. I enjoy my job, so I'm happy to help you for free.

She did, starts at something like 40 seconds, and continues throughout the first clip that contains the question you take umbrage with. Then it became edited shown by the fact that all of a sudden she's wearing different clothes. Did you miss that or are simply showing again why I don't think you have intellectual honesty?

That tells me that you did not watch and listen to the video clip. The editing came right after Karine denied that she talks about Trump, so the Youtuber edited in several past examples of Karine obsessively talking about Trump.

You are wrong on the particulars and are undermining your own point. Clinton was investigated for over a year for her handling of government documents, an investigation that was reopened a few weeks before the general election BY THE FBI while being the Democratic nominee for the presidency under a Democratic President. An investigation that almost certainly cost her the presidency.

Trump is been under investigation for over a year after he failed to turn in documents to the national archives so they can distinguish personal from government property, even after a first summons, a subpoena, and a lie by his lawyers.

So pray tell how you get from that that that Trump is being treated differently from Hillary? Looking at it in the best possible light for Trump the best argument you can make is that Trump is being treated the same as Hillary.

Hillary was allowed to decide what documents to turn over, while Trump had his home invaded, and they took everything they could get their hands on. So that was different. Hillary was allowed to wipe her stolen documents with Bleachbit, while Trump took advice from the FBI on how to best preserve and safeguard the documents he took as a part of more than two hundred year old presidential precedent. Hillary smashed her government issued devices with hammers to make sure the FBI could never check them, while Trump returned his completely intact, so that was different.

Sure, find me 1 example of a president keeping and holding classified documents as he leaves the White House. By the way, a president CAN'T BY LAW claim documents generated by government agencies as personal property. The presidential record act is specific on the front.

Actually, he can claim that in casual conversation. He would be meaning it in the colloquial sense. If you've ever been in the military, which of course you have not, you know that the lowliest private will say, "Don't walk on my floor!" if he has just mopped it. No one accuses him of stealing the floor.

He could legally claim it in court. The court may disagree, but they won't punish him for claiming it.

Your language is imprecise, sir, for such an important topic.

Also wrong, for instance, classified information pertaining to nuclear information is arranged by statute and does not have the president as its arbiter. Can Trump Just Declare Nuclear Secrets Unclassified?

The court's ruling on presidential powers over classification made no exception for nuclear secrets.

Also, presidents have the authority to declassify. Ex-presidents don't, and pretending YOU believe for a second that Trump actually declassified all documents he took when he was president, without there being a shred of documentation attesting to the fact insults both our intelligence.

Of course he did. No doubt he called his attorney and his end sounded like this:

"I'd like to take some of these documents with me and secure them at Mar-a-Largo. But some of them are classified, do I need to have Mar-a-Largo converted to a secure facility with a SCIF? What? I can just declassify them under my authority as president? The Supreme Court firmly said so? Great!

Then, I declassify them all. Bigly!"

There's no legal reason for him not to have done that and no way the Keystone Kops/KGB/Woke Mob at the DOJ/FBI can ever . . . ever . . . prove that he did not.

This one was another busto, forkup. Don't worry. These TDS members of government have more than two more years for more of these clownshows.

BTW, I couldn't help notice that your first post on this thread was at about 2:00 A.M. Did you notice that my reply was about 6:00 AM? I was just getting up at six, but I'm guessing you were still up at two? That's a big part of your problem, right there.

Maybe I should start a thread called "Advice to a young man on how to be a better man." I won't mention your name specifically, but you'll know that it's my effort to help you improve.

 

[Puma Punku]

How many days has it been since the raid? How long does the FBI expect the American public to wait for the reason that a 9 hour raid with 30 agents combing his home was truly necessary? The longer we wait, the more it looks like the situation was not truly urgent, but instead, just another lame attack on Trump and his family by the lowest polling president in history, against his most powerful political opponent.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No that is me acknowledging that there's a difference between doing something unethical, something illegal, and something that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Those 3 things are not always the same. I don't doubt that Trump did something unethical on Jan 6th, I'm pretty sure he did something illegal, but I'm less convinced that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not a "word salad" it's an honest opinion based on the facts as they are known to me. I'm not prone to wishful thinking, or changing my mind on the basis of political affiliation.

What did he do that was illegal? Describe the precise action and the precise law it violated.