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

[Seymour Flops]

Nope. Trump did it to himself. He lost against the librarians at the National Archives.

How has he "lost?" Some moving men with badges came in and stole some boxes of papers.

I guess that really what all the victory dancing is about, huh? Well enjoy the memory when Trump gets sworn in in January 2027.

 

[forkup]

Your doctor's answer will probably sound condescending, but much more appropriately so than your condescending tone in speaking to him.

If this is your way of claiming you are knowledgable and I'm not so you being condescending is warranted I'll simply disagree. I'll point out that I don't think I flee to fallacious arguments whenever I can't defend my position nearly as much as you, if ever.

Every single president in history has taken documents produced by federal agencies out of the White House when they left.

Sure, you can of course prove that claim, right?

Who asked for it and why did she not immediately turn it over to the agency that asked for it. She never turned it over, were you under the impression that she did?

The FBI asked for it and one of the NINE Benghazi committees.. https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
Page. Page 67,68,69 give you the background.

Hillary's email server was a physical object, that she never gave to the FBI or anyone else.

She did give it. Again page 67,68.

because the FBI would have raided her home and taken it, without allowing her lawyer to observe

The ONLY reason the FBI went in there is because they had reason to believe, and facts bore them out that Trump didn't turn them all over. With Clinton that simply wasn't the case. Yes 33000 were deleted and by the way some of them were recovered. But the reason for it could be explained and the explanation was accepted.

There is a vast difference between someone under investigation cooperating and someone actively obstructing an investigation

Again and I will say this again, just like you will ignore it again. Trump was under subpoena to deliver the documents and he did not provide them. They weren't accidentally deleted or inocious. Some of those documents fell under the highest level of classification in the US.

And another point I made before. The FBI was responsible for derailing her bid for the presidency. Something by the way I supported at the time. Since I do not change my tune when something like this happens to someone I support. And this despite Obama being president. So claiming that Trump somehow is targeted for political reasons flies in the face of that.

after seven years of fruitlessly trying to find something - anything - to pin on Hillary.

Trump would have been charged if not for his office.

I don't give you credit for much knowledge and understanding.

It seems to me I'm more knowledgeable than you are. I can for instance remember what was said 4 days ago.

It's been a while since you posted, so I don't even remember what point you were claiming was made by the video.

This OP is 4 pages long and the only thing you have to do is push the arrow on the post to go to the relevant ones. But I'll help.

This was the first part of my reply.

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.

To which you replied this.

Now that's a good argument if only Karine Jean-Pierre had made it. But she didn't say that at all.

 

[forkup]

I get that you didn't like Trump riling up his supporters. I get that you are fine with Democrats riling up BLM and ANTIFA for a year and a half previous to that. You never blamed the murders, arson, rapes, lootings, assaults, and intimidation of children committed by those rioters on the Democrats who encouraged them, so I'm not going to blame Trump for a broken window for which a woman was summarily executed by a Democrat, and some congresspersons having to put on sneakers, in fear of angry cheated voters.

get that you didn't like Trump riling up his supporters.

You asked me the question of what laws he violated and why. I directly answered them. What I like and don't like has nothing to do with it.

I get that you are fine with Democrats riling up BLM and ANTIFA for a year and a half previous to that.

Please do tell how Democrats were responsible. My recollection is that it started because a cop sat on a black guy's neck for 9 minutes while bystanders were filming and telling the cop he was non-responsive.

You never blamed the murders, arson, rapes, lootings, assaults, and intimidation of children committed by those rioters on the Democrats who encouraged them

No, I didn't. Unlike you, I don't blame a political party for unrest over police brutality. I'll put it like this. Without a Democratic party Chauvin would still sat on Floyds neck and the riots would still have happened. Take Trump out of the equation and Jan 6th would not have happened.

so I'm not going to blame Trump for a broken window for which a woman was summarily executed by a Democrat

Ah, you mean that woman who was first through a broken window despite there being a cop with drawn sidearm, togheter with about fifty others while in the background they are evacuating the house chamber.

Let me ask you. What do you think he should have done. Let her and the mob pass and get to the lawmakers and staff?

And as another asside. You are now making a straight up appeal to hypocrisy. Let's just say the Democrats were responsible for the riots in the summer. They weren't but just for the sake of argument. That still wouldn't vindicate Trump for his role in Jan 6th.

 

[forkup]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but, I believe that if the FBI did, in fact, find a "smoking gun" then, by now, we would have heard about it. The longer it takes the FBI to reveal what was so urgent that they had to take this historically tyrannical step, to finally find proof of Trump's criminal behavior... the more skeptical thinking Americans will be.

It's the other way around I'm afraid. The FBI and DOJ typically doesn't communicate before they have all the relevant facts.

Just think about this logically. First, they need to go through the relevant documents. Then they have to go through the security footage, identifying and if possible interviewing every single person who went into those rooms in order to establish they're reasoning for being there. This is important first from a national security perspective and secondary from a criminal investigation perspective.

It needs to be established why Trump had those documents and if somebody else looked at them.

It is kind of interesting that so many believe that the DOJ will blow their investigation to satisfy public opinion.

 

[surada]

How has he "lost?" Some moving men with badges came in and stole some boxes of papers.

I guess that really what all the victory dancing is about, huh? Well enjoy the memory when Trump gets sworn in in January 2027.

You know that Trump has no shame. Remember the Central Park Five?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If this is your way of claiming you are knowledgable and I'm not so you being condescending is warranted I'll simply disagree. I'll point out that I don't think I flee to fallacious arguments whenever I can't defend my position nearly as much as you if ever.

Sure, you can of course prove that claim, right?

Easily:

Presidential records found right in Clinton’s drawer

A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month.

www.washingtontimes.com

The Clinton library's secret files

About 33,000 pages of documents are involved.

www.politico.com

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/DOCUMENT/940411.htm

There's something about the White House electronic mail that seems to bring out the worst tendencies among government officials, whoever's in the White House:

• Oliver North and national security adviser John Poindexter electronically shredded thousands of their E-mail messages on their way out of the NSC in November 1986 (but the system's back-up tapes allowed investigators to recover these messages and use them as legal evidence).
• The Reagan Administration, with the acquiescence of the National Archives, planned to blip out all the E-mail memory and backup tapes on its way out of office in January 1989, only to be stopped by our lawsuit.
• After we won court rulings establishing that the records laws apply to e-mail, the Bush Administration staged a midnight ride on Inauguration Eve 1993 to round up the computer tapes and put them beyond the law, under a secret agreement which purported to give Mr. Bush control of the tapes, contrary to the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act.

The contorted Presidential Records Act is a bipartisan scam to hide White House mischief

Former presidents should forfeit any right to confidentiality of their papers on the day they sign a (very lucrative) contract to write a memoir.

www.usatoday.com

Yeah, so plenty of guys should be in line for prosecution before Trump. Unless there is some reason to prioritize Trump?

The FBI asked for it and one of the NINE Benghazi committees.. https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
Page. Page 67,68,69 give you the background.

She did give it. Again page 67,68.

Maybe you misread the page numbers, or maybe you just made up random numbers to waste my time. I read through them three times. There is nothing on pages 67, 68, nor 69, about the FBI, the Benghazi committees, or any request for the server and Hillary complying with that request. Nothing that we could disagree on how to interpret statements about about those organizations and requests, just nothing at all about them.

If that was a prank, kudos. You reveal why I'm condescending to you.

FWIW, the random numbers you pulled out of your backside led to pages about how the DOJ was trying to clean up the mess after then-President Obama publicly stated that Hillary was innocent, in order to obstruct justice. Pick a random page on a document about a Democrat leader and you're very likely to land on some description of their corruption.

The ONLY reason the FBI went in there is because they had reason to believe, and facts bore them out that Trump didn't turn them all over. With Clinton that simply wasn't the case. Yes 33000 were deleted and by the way some of them were recovered. But the reason for it could be explained and the explanation was accepted.

There is a vast difference between someone under investigation cooperating and someone actively obstructing an investigation

Yes, and Trump was cooperating while Hillary did not.

Again and I will say this again, just like you will ignore it again. Trump was under subpoena to deliver the documents and he did not provide them. There is nothing that Hillary did that was comparable.

Which FBI or DOJ official described the subpoenas and what was the description? When did they say that Trump did not provide what was under subpoena? To answer for you, no FBI or DOJ official gave that information. The TDS media gets their information from "sources," not DOJ or FBI officials. If DOJ or FBI officials are the sources, they are violating their claimed policy of not talking about an ongoing investigation.

Therefore, they do not have the integrity to be trusted as a source.

And another point I made before. The FBI was responsible for derailing her bid for the presidency. Something by the way I supported at the time. Since I do not change my tune when something like this happens to someone I support. And this despite Obama being president. So claiming that Trump somehow is targeted for political reasons flies in the face of that.

No, it doesn't. The FBI was being run by establishment Republican James Comey. He would have been just as biased against Trump as he was against Hillary. That he did what he did and you still have this white knight pure image of the FBI is silly.

Trump would have been charged if not for his office.

No, he would not have. That is what the anti-Trump activists and Obama/Clinton donors that were the entire Mueller team wanted you to believe.

If they had chargeable crimes but had to hold off because he was president, they could have filed the charges right after Biden was sworn in.

It seems to me I'm more knowledgeable than you are. I can for instance remember what was said 4 days ago.



This OP is 4 pages long and the only thing you have to do is push the arrow on the post to go to the relevant ones. But I'll help.

This was the first part of my reply.

To which you replied this.

Yeah, I remember the "dress change" that you thought was the smoking gun. Did you understand my explaining that to you, or did you even read it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You know that Trump has no shame. Remember the Central Park Five?

The rapists? What about them?