The Trump Hypocrisy of a weaponized Judicial system!

[Hafar1014]

you are simply a con artist

View attachment 1166741

So how was the lawfare and hate speech working out for you? Trump kicked your ass didnt he. Now paybacks are coming. It feels good to win.

 

[Luckyone]

So how was the lawfare and hate speech working out for you? Trump kicked your ass didnt he. Now paybacks are coming. It feels good to win.

I know that for Republicans "winning is everything". Damn the Constitution, damn free speech, damn human rights, and damn Democracy". Destroy them all! Winning is the only important thing.

For me, this is what it is all about:

 

[ColonelAngus]

Wray lied to Congress.

He told Clay Higgins there were not feds in plainclothes at J6.

There were nearly 300!

WRAY LIED TO CONGRESS!

 

[Mac1958]

Trump has been saying for many years that the Democrats have weaponized the Justice system to attack him and the Republicans. Here below in the video, is him saying it again just 6 months ago and now with the James Comey indictment, he is going against the Democrats



and yet on January 2025, he said the following:



This all means that he is being a hypocrite because he says weaponizing the Justice system politically is the wrong thing to do, but now he has done exactly the same thing by weaponizing the Justice system himself, to go after his political opponents. He did pick Pam Bondi as his attorney general and she was picked because she is LOYAL to Trump (not unbiased as the Justice system should be).

If you can show me any examples of Biden saying that he would go after his political opponents through the judicial system, show me and I will take the hypocrisy statement out.

Having said that, it is nonetheless, wrong to use the Judicial system for a political purpose.

The flock, as always, just equates this madness with Biden. As if they're the same.

Like they equate the Insurrection with street riots.

Trump can do no wrong, and if he does, it was someone else's fault, or someone else did the same thing.

This is a cult.

 

[Billiejeens]

Wray lied to Congress.

He told Clay Higgins there were not feds in plainclothes at J6.

There were nearly 300!

WRAY LIED TO CONGRESS!

I remembered Wray saying he didn't know or couldn't say

Is that not right.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, my opinion is not what I gave. I SHOWED that Trump chose the people to go after "specifically" and it has been shown that Trump chose Bondi because of his loyalty to him, which she has proven several times already, doing what wanted her to do.

But it is your opinion that he chose those people because of politics, when he has stated that he is going after them for their crimes.

Do you not believe that criminals should pay for their crimes?

That is not opinion but fact and I showed Trump's video with his OWN words saying so.

You cannot (and did not) disprove what is shown

Yes, for crimes. There are any number of people that Trump does not like, but he is not asking the DOJ to go after them becuase they did not commit crimes.

Is there a list you have somewhere of criminals who should be above the law?

 

[ColonelAngus]

I remembered Wray saying he didn't know or couldn't say

Is that not right.

He knew.

Clay asked him why he can’t say no.

So Wray knew there was a possibility there were undercover feds at J6.

No way the Director did not know.

How did Clay know but not Wray?

I cannot be convinced Wray had NO IDEA.

 

[Seymour Flops]

and yet on January 2025, he said the following:

Trump didn't say anything in that video. Not one word.

The whole video is no audio shots of Trump walking around and then a bunch of Democrat or "not Democrat" talking heads telling is what they think he said.

You posted that as proof of something that Trump said? Why lie, if you're so sure you are right?

 

[whitehall]

Democrats impeached Trump based on falsified documents, they infiltrated the Jan 6 demonstration with federal agents, they indicted him on frivolous charges, they invaded his home and his wife's underwear drawer allegedly looking for classified documents while Biden got a pass and when that didn't work they set him up for two assassination attempts. Now the left whines about Comey? Give me a freaking break.

 

[westwall]

So you support a politically biased Judicial system?

You did, so **** off.

 

[Manonthestreet]

So you support a politically biased Judicial system?

We know you do.......this is called balance.....deal with it

 

[ColonelAngus]

Lefties hated Comey in 2016.

Now they love him.

Such whores.

 

[j-mac]

Trump has been saying for many years that the Democrats have weaponized the Justice system to attack him and the Republicans. Here below in the video, is him saying it again just 6 months ago and now with the James Comey indictment, he is going against the Democrats



and yet on January 2025, he said the following:



This all means that he is being a hypocrite because he says weaponizing the Justice system politically is the wrong thing to do, but now he has done exactly the same thing by weaponizing the Justice system himself, to go after his political opponents. He did pick Pam Bondi as his attorney general and she was picked because she is LOYAL to Trump (not unbiased as the Justice system should be).

If you can show me any examples of Biden saying that he would go after his political opponents through the judicial system, show me and I will take the hypocrisy statement out.

Having said that, it is nonetheless, wrong to use the Judicial system for a political purpose.

So, you don’t like your actions being done to you….cry more.

 

[Luckyone]

But it is your opinion that he chose those people because of politics, when he has stated that he is going after them for their crimes.

Earlier this week, one of Donald Trump’s former personal attorneys, Lindsey Halligan, was temporarily elevated to the role of top prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia. Another former Trump attorney, Pam Bondi, tapped her for the role, and she had a chilling mandate from Trump himself: Prosecute his political rivals. In a post on Truth Social, he specifically named former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Sen. Adam Schiff.

Yes, for crimes. There are any number of people that Trump does not like, but he is not asking the DOJ to go after them becuase they did not commit crimes.

Is there a list you have somewhere of criminals who should be above the law?

This is not about criminals not being prosecuted. It is about the fact that Trump specifically is targeting political RIVALS and himself choosing who to go after. This is not about investigations discovering wrong-doing but about targeting opponents.

Do you notice that he is not mentioning any other person who may be a criminal, for the Justice system to go after?

For example, he did NOT mention "Vance Boelter" who

• In June 2025, Boelter was arrested and charged in connection with the assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker.

 

[Luckyone]

We know you do.......this is called balance.....deal with it

You did not answer the question. You deflected and went after the messenger (me and the left) without answering whether "you support a biased political system". Why didn't you?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Earlier this week, one of Donald Trump’s former personal attorneys, Lindsey Halligan, was temporarily elevated to the role of top prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia. Another former Trump attorney, Pam Bondi, tapped her for the role, and she had a chilling mandate from Trump himself: Prosecute his political rivals. In a post on Truth Social, he specifically named former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Sen. Adam Schiff.

First did you admit that Trump said nothing at all in the video that you introduced by saying "he said this?"

If those people committed crimes, why would they not be prosecuted?

Are you saying that Trump is the first exective, and Bondi et all, the first prosecutors to prioritize some criminal suspects over others?

This is not about criminals not being prosecuted. It is about the fact that Trump specifically is targeting political RIVALS and himself choosing who to go after. This is not about investigations discovering wrong-doing but about targeting opponents.

It is about prosecuting wrong doing that has already been discovered, because it was done quite out in the open with the cheering of the media.

Your desire to protect criminals from prosecution by any means necessary is perplexing, as it always is when Democrats and "not Democrats" do it.

Do you notice that he is not mentioning any other person who may be a criminal, for the Justice system to go after?

For example, he did NOT mention "Vance Boelter" who

• In June 2025, Boelter was arrested and charged in connection with the assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker.

He cannot mention every single criminal in the country.

He was elected by voters who believed that he was attacked by a criminally weaponized justice system. So, of course he prioritizes the voters strongest expressed wish, that such criminals be brought to justice.

DA Alvin Bragg and Attorney General Leticia James both ran on promises to prosecute one person, Donald Trump. You were very cool with that, so enjoy this continuation of the policy of selective prosecution that you promoted in the past.

 

[Luckyone]

First did you admit that Trump said nothing at all in the video that you introduced by saying "he said this?"

If those people committed crimes, why would they not be prosecuted?

Are you saying that Trump is the first exective, and Bondi et all, the first prosecutors to prioritize some criminal suspects over others?



It is about prosecuting wrong doing that has already been discovered, because it was done quite out in the open with the cheering of the media.

Your desire to protect criminals from prosecution by any means necessary is perplexing, as it always is when Democrats and "not Democrats" do it.

He cannot mention every single criminal in the country.

He was elected by voters who believed that he was attacked by a criminally weaponized justice system. So, of course he prioritizes the voters strongest expressed wish, that such criminals be brought to justice.

DA Alvin Bragg and Attorney General Leticia James both ran on promises to prosecute one person, Donald Trump. You were very cool with that, so enjoy this continuation of the policy of selective prosecution that you promoted in the past.

It is not the role or duty of the president to signal out who the Judicial system goes after, specifically political rivals. That is exactly what would-be-dictators do.

It is exclusively the role of the judicial system to go after criminals. It is they that do the investigations when THEY find that someone may have broken the law.

AI Overview

No, the President of the United States does not have the legal right to choose who is prosecuted or targeted by the judicial system. Such action is a severe violation of the fundamental principle of separation of
powers and the rule of law.

Here is a breakdown of how the U.S. system is designed to prevent this:

• The Department of Justice's independence. The Attorney General and federal prosecutors within the Department of Justice are responsible for conducting investigations and making prosecution decisions. While the Attorney General is a presidential appointee, there is a long-standing tradition of independence, established to prevent the politicization of criminal justice. The DOJ's mission is to "ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans," not to serve the president's political or personal interests.
• Prosecutorial discretion. The power to decide whether to bring charges, select charges, or offer plea bargains rests with federal prosecutors. This power, known as prosecutorial discretion, is a core executive power held by the DOJ, not the president. The decisions must be based on the law and facts of a case, not political considerations.
• The rule of law and the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution, which establishes the system of checks and balances, forbids the concentration of power in one branch. Allowing the president to direct prosecutions would violate the rule of law, which requires that everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law.
• Potential for abuse. Directing prosecutions would create a clear avenue for a president to abuse power by targeting political opponents or protecting allies. Such actions would be a grave breach of the public trust and have been compared to the practices of authoritarian regimes.

Congress and the Separation of Powers​

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump has been saying for many years that the Democrats have weaponized the Justice system to attack him and the Republicans. Here below in the video, is him saying it again just 6 months ago and now with the James Comey indictment, he is going against the Democrats



and yet on January 2025, he said the following:



This all means that he is being a hypocrite because he says weaponizing the Justice system politically is the wrong thing to do, but now he has done exactly the same thing by weaponizing the Justice system himself, to go after his political opponents. He did pick Pam Bondi as his attorney general and she was picked because she is LOYAL to Trump (not unbiased as the Justice system should be).

If you can show me any examples of Biden saying that he would go after his political opponents through the judicial system, show me and I will take the hypocrisy statement out.

Having said that, it is nonetheless, wrong to use the Judicial system for a political purpose.

It sounds like you are saying Trump is using the law to seek revenge... well revenge for what?....

 

[Rambunctious]

8 years the libs including Obama and Biden went after Trump and not one lib said a thing... so now you can soak in the tub you filled....

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is not the role or duty of the president to signal out who the Judicial system goes after, specifically political rivals. That is exactly what would-be-dictators do.

Did you or did you not post a video you claimed would show what Trump said, but which did not show him saying anything? Was it that you did not watch the video? Then I assume you did not read that cut and paste, so neither did I.

Your opinion means less than nothing, because it is the opposite of Constitutional mandates.

The constitution defines the president's role as having all executive power vested him him or her.

The DOJ is an executive agency. He would be remiss if he did not set priorities for them.