Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[Seymour Flops]

I tend to be very careful about what I state without reservation. An intelligent man should be in my opinion. Among other things not doing so often leads to conflating opinion and facts. This leads to the begging of questions as well as several other fallacies.

We grew up in a different educational system, is the upshot of that. I had a textbook in high school called "A Rhetoric of Argument," that taught how to write opinion pieces. One of its conventions was that you don't keep saying "in my opinion," when it is an obvious opinion piece.

Frankly, I'd rather be the guy that states his opinion in a factual tone than the guy who states "facts," that are not true.

What I am willing to state is that I think Jack Smith is prosecuting Donald J. Trump because he believes that Trump violated criminal statutes. Not because of politics.

That is my position. Nothing more nothing less.

Of course not, that would be silly. What I do imagine is that Trump running does not factor in his decision to prosecute Trump.

In my opinion (see what I did there?), you are much too intelligent to really believe that.

I will now ask a question of my own. You content that it's alright for Trump to use what you consider as a layman to be "weak arguments" ,in order to delay the trial. Because the prosecution amounts to "election interference." You further state that you know the charges are meritless.

Did I say "the charges are meritless?" I stated that I haven't seen evidence connecting the dots from a criminal statute to an action by Trump that violated that statute.

So here's the question. Why want to delay the trial at all? Being found not guilty for crimes would basically guarantee a second Trump term in my opinion. It would actually give some validation to the argument Jack Smith is prosecuting for political reasons.

So, why would an innocent man. With the funds too hire very competent legal representation. Not be willing too ensure political victory by actually having his day in court to disprove what to you are obviously bogus charges? Why not demand the quickest possible trial date.and defeat the charges?

Your assumption is that the trial will be perfectly fair and that an innocent man has nothing to worry about. I don't know what polyanna country you think the trial will take place in, but as far as I know it is slated to go forward in the highly politicized, highly divided United States.

Anyway, a trial takes time. Trump has an election to win. A presidential election is far more important that the trial of one individual - no different from any other defendant, according to your interpretation of Jack Smith - for such petty crimes as not fully complying with a subpoena.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes I do mean Corcoran. I did this from memory. My memory didn't include the spelling of the name and I didn't consider it germane to the argument, to the extent I needed to look it up.

The problem is that Corcoran stated in front of the Grand Jury that the reason he asked Bobb to sign the document, was that he asked Trump of he got everything. You have the "story of what was said" I have the summary of what was presented to the Grand Jury.

You said before you had read the transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony, not a summary.

Suppose Trump's lawyer did say that and suppose Trump really did say he had everything. So, what? Is every person who ever said something that turned out to be incorrect to their own attorney guilty of a crime? What statute is that?

Donald Trump is in the "story". And not as hearsay. A lawyer testifying as to what his client told him, is not hearsay. Hearsay would be when the lawyer heard someone else relaying what Trump said.

First, " sloppily storing" classified material is hardly a ringing endorsement.

No, the point is not that Trump is perfect.

More importantly, I don't need to claim he went over every document. I simply need to be able to state that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is aware of what's in his desk. That contained 3 of such documents.

Are you kidding? How much time do you think Trump spends at his desk going over documents?

I simply need to be able to state that it's a lie beyond a reasonable doubt to claim you did a diligent search when finding over three hundred clearly marked documents bearing classification markings.

If you think that's impossible to sell. I will simply disagree.

Finding documents after your lawyer claimed a diligent search was conducted and testimony from that lawyer that he did so after you confirmed the veracity of the statement IS direct evidence. The affidavit is direct evidence.

You are conflating the term direct evidence. With "evidence you personally are willing to accept" I believe.

In order to prove guilt you can use direct and indirect evidence, both can reinforce themselves to determine guilt.

Again begging the question. Just because you don't accept Trump is LIKELY guilty does not mean I haven't shown that it is likely. It simply means I haven't convinced you.

You don't think so?

18 U.S. Code § 1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations

www.law.cornell.edu

Here again the problem isn't so much that people don't try to explain stuff to you. It's a matter of you rejecting what's being said when people do.

That's a problem that's on you.

Now, you are making it personal, just as you complained about me doing. Either way is fine with me, just make up your mind.

By the way I'm currently choosing not to highlight stuff like the fact that Nauta was named in the indictment moving boxes in our the storage area. Right before and right after Cocorane's search. It's not that I forgot or that it's not implicating if taken together with other facts. It's that I don't need those bits to establish the Beyond reasonable doubt standard in a court of law. And highlighting it would require drawing inferences. Reasonable ones, but inferences nonetheless.

You bring that up, just to say that you;re not going to bring that up?

 

[postman]

No president should have absolute immunity. Especially from criminal prosecution AFTER he left office. If you can't uphold the laws you've sworn to protect yourself. You should be liable....PERIOD.

The Nixon era DOJ Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president has immunity from criminal prosecution by DOJ.
DOJ can't touch him until he either resigns, gets impeached/convicted, or his term(s) expire.

 

[cnm]

"Begs the question," is supposed to mean "avoids the question."

Really? I thought it meant 'assumed an answer in the question'.

 

[cnm]

The Nixon era DOJ Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president has immunity from criminal prosecution by DOJ.
DOJ can't touch him until he either resigns, gets impeached/convicted, or his term(s) expire.

I wondered what was meant by 'Rule of Law'.

 

[postman]

I wondered what was meant by 'Rule of Law'.

My guess is the technicality that the president is also the chief law enforcement officer. So in effect, the president would be prosecuting himself.

It would be like when congress tried to hold AG Holder in contempt, without realizing that charges referred to DOJ, are prosecuted at the discretion of the AG.

And apparently AG Holder didn't feel he deserved prosecution.

 

[Godboy]

He could have surrendered and given himself up to have his day in court.

He could have, but he didnt. He still has the right to due process.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Really? I thought it meant 'assumed an answer in the question'.

Interesting. I’ll look it up.

 

[dudmuck]

My guess is the technicality that the president is also the chief law enforcement officer. So in effect, the president would be prosecuting himself.

It would be like when congress tried to hold AG Holder in contempt, without realizing that charges referred to DOJ, are prosecuted at the discretion of the AG.

And apparently AG Holder didn't feel he deserved prosecution.

Is the president the chief law enforcement officer? Not exactly. The Constitution says that the president shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," not that he must personally enforce the law. Generally, the Attorney General of the United States is considered the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

 

[forkup]

The Nixon era DOJ Office of Legal Counsel position that a sitting president has immunity from criminal prosecution by DOJ.
DOJ can't touch him until he either resigns, gets impeached/convicted, or his term(s) expire.

Sure. Operative word. Sitting President.

I have the distinct feeling that most people don't know what the argument is that Trump's lawyers are trying too assert.

A president at the moment has some form of qualified immunity. Mainly in a civil context for actions as a president. If those actions can be reasonably asserted to be in the execution of his office. You wouldn't be able to sue for damages for instance if a family member got killed in a drone strike. He further has some limited practical immunity from criminal prosecution, while in office. This is not an actual tested legal doctrine but more of an agreement the DOJ holds itself too.

So far I see little problem.

Now, Trump has tried to expand that Civil immunity for actions he did prior gaining office. This got shot down.

Here though he's arguing something else. He's not arguing that the same qualified immunity a president enjoys is applicable in a criminal context. He's arguing to change the nature of immunity completely.

Instead of looking at immunity through the lense of intended outcome. (A president does something that's technically illegal in furtherance of his office.)

He's claiming you have to look at it through the lense of what is considered Presidential power. Moreover he wants that power to be interpreted as broadly as possible.

In other words. If a particular action can be broadly considered as within his duty. It doesn't matter of it's illegal OR done for personal reasons. He's immune. Unless and until he's impeached.

That's the reason the lawyer had to concede the hypothetical.

I'll give another hypothetical.
The executive branch is responsible for distributing emergency disaster relief.

Congress can make funds available for such relief, and under the doctrine proposed a president can say. I'm ordering FEMA to put those funds in my personal bank account.

Unless Congress chooses to impeach. He can't be prosecuted.

 

[forkup]

You said before you had read the transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony, not a summary.

Suppose Trump's lawyer did say that and suppose Trump really did say he had everything. So, what? Is every person who ever said something that turned out to be incorrect to their own attorney guilty of a crime? What statute is that?

No, the point is not that Trump is perfect.

Are you kidding? How much time do you think Trump spends at his desk going over documents?

Now, you are making it personal, just as you complained about me doing. Either way is fine with me, just make up your mind.

You bring that up, just to say that you;re not going to bring that up?

Is every person who ever said something that turned out to be incorrect to their own attorney guilty of a crime? What statute is that?

Not every person. Just a person who can be asserted to have done so willfully, and that incorrect statement being the cause of the lawyer making a false statement in a court document.

Are you kidding? How much time do you think Trump spends at his desk going over documents?

Enough to know what documents are in his desk.

Now, you are making it personal, just as you complained about me doing. Either way is fine with me, just make up your mind.

Pointing out that a person is being dishonest in a debate, and more importantly why. Is valid. Trying to avoid questions by trying to put the other person on the defensive is not.

You bring that up, just to say that you;re not going to bring that up?

Yes. To illustrate what I've given you is by no means the only evidence in the public realm

 

[forkup]

Really? I thought it meant 'assumed an answer in the question'.

It does. He just doesn't like that definition. So he made his own.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trumps argument seems to be that anything goes unless you are impeached.
A President is immune from prosecution even after he has left office.

So, in this case……Committing a criminal act two weeks before you leave office where Congress does not have time to impeach ……leaves you immune from prosecution

Trump's argument is dangerous and devoid of merit.

 

[BlindBoo]

He could have, but he didnt. He still has the right to due process.

Not in Yemen, as an Al Qaeda terrorist/operative actively plotting 9-11 level events against civilians. He got his just dues. Just like his hero.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did I make that claim? I pretty sure I didn't.

I'm claiming that needing immunity implies that you might need immunity. Which then implies you're aware you might have committed a crime.

Completely counter, to what our American justice system means. A person is not required to testify against themselves, and neither is court allowed to take the fact that he refused to testify as evidence of guilt. A person might want immunity if they were guilty a crime. But they also might want immunity if they were being subjected to one of the most malicious politically driven prosecution in history of this country. That is exactly what is happening here.

These aren't inferences that reach the threshold that would stand up in criminal court. Just like pleading the fifth doesn't (another thing he's done hundreds of times.) But nothings stopping me from doing so and frankly, I would dare anyone claiming it's an unreasonable inference.

It is an inference that one could make reasonably in a system, in which the Justice department was after nothing more than justice, and had no political motivation. That is absolutely not the case at this time. I know you claim it is, or at least claim to believe that it is. Again I don’t believe a person that unintelligent would be able to even type on a message board.

The same goes for self-pardons a concept the aforementioned Nixon never dared suggest.

Oh! He never dared! When you have to use that kind of silly, overly dramatic language, it signals a weakness in your case.

Simple. No reasonable prosecutor figured an indictment would meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard required to convict.

How is that possible, when what Hillary did was so much more egregious than what Trump did?

Ot doesn't require political reasons for a political person to be indicted. It requires crimes that stand up to scrutiny in a court. You just assume it does.

Bob Menendez is being indictment. No Democrat is supporting his assertion its political. Hunter Biden is being indicted. I don't see Democrat's rushing to his defense.

The justice department, and the intelligence community, have been covering up for Hunter Biden for years. Are you seriously not aware of that?

Lastly I'm not direct quoting here because it's minor. You agree with the assertion that presidents should have some immunity. I agree. I've said so in this post.

No president should have absolute immunity. Especially from criminal prosecution AFTER he left office. If you can't uphold the laws you've sworn to protect yourself. You should be liable....PERIOD.

You should address those comments to someone who is advocating absolute immunity for past presidents Who exactly would that be?

 

[forkup]

Completely counter, to what our American justice system means. A person is not required to testify against themselves, and neither is court allowed to take the fact that he refused to testify as evidence of guilt. A person might want immunity if they were guilty a crime. But they also might want immunity if they were being subjected to one of the most malicious politically driven prosecution in history of this country. That is exactly what is happening here.

It is an inference that one could make reasonably in a system, in which suggested department was after nothing more than justice, and had no political motivation. That is absolutely not the case at this time. I know you claim it is, or at least to believe that it is. Again I don’t believe a person that unintelligent would be able to even type on a message board.

Oh! He never dared! When you have to use that kind of silly, overly dramatic language, it signals a weakness in your case.

How is that possible, when what Hillary did was so much more egregious than what Trump did?

The justice department, and the intelligence community, have been covering up for Hunter Biden for years. Are you seriously not aware of that?

You should address those comments to someone who is advocating absolutely immunity for past president. Who exactly would that be?

That is exactly what is happening here.

Begging the question.

That is absolutely not the case at this time.

Begging the question

Oh! He never dared! When you have to use that kind of silly, overly dramatic language, it signals a weakness in your case.

No, objective fact. He never suggested he had that power. Trump does.

what Hillary did was so much more egregious than what Trump did?

Begging the question

The justice department, and the intelligence community, have been covering up for Hunter Biden for years.

Begging the question

You should address those comments to someone who is advocating absolutely immunity for past president. Who exactly would that be?

His lawyers.
Congratulations. You managed to select 6 quotes of me. Begging the question in 4 of them.

The 2 others were easily answered.

And don't ask me again to explain the meaning of it.

Beg the Question

It's not begging at all

www.merriam-webster.com

This is how I mean it.

You called an objective fact, a sign of a weak argument. You used a fallacious argument in nearly every response. Who's weaker?

 

[Godboy]

Not in Yemen, as an Al Qaeda terrorist/operative actively plotting 9-11 level events against civilians. He got his just dues. Just like his hero.

Where did you come up with THAT law?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Begging the question.

Begging the question

No, objective fact. He never suggested he had that power. Trump does.

Begging the question

Begging the question

His lawyers.
Congratulations. You managed to select 6 quotes of me. Begging the question in 4 of them.

The 2 others were easily answered.

And don't ask me again to explain the meaning of it.

Beg the Question

It's not begging at all

www.merriam-webster.com

This is how I mean it.

You called an objective fact, a sign of a weak argument. You used a fallacious argument in nearly every response. Who's weaker?

So by begging the question, you mean I am assuming the answer to the question?

There is no question as to whether DOJ investigations of presidential candidates are done in a highly partisan manner. We were presented the proof of that when the Strozck/Page texts were released, when the FISA Court admonished the FBI (not an individual) for lying and when Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to falsifying a document to get a warrant.

My question is why does an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself choose to ignore those facts and insist that the DOJ is apolitical and only interested in fighting crime wherever it may be found?

I think the answer is TDS.

I believe it will be recognized as an authentic mental disorder. It will be especially acute upon the death of Trump, when sufferers no longer have a target for their repressed rage.

When that time comes, Please self-monitor for signs of excessive anger over small setbacks, and a compulsion to aggressively argue small points those around you have little interest in.

 

[forkup]

So by begging the question, you mean I am assuming the answer to the question?

There is no question as to whether DOJ investigations of presidential candidates are done in a highly partisan manner. We were presented the proof of that when the Strozck/Page texts were released, when the FISA Court admonished the FBI (not an individual) for lying and when Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to falsifying a document to get a warrant.

My question is why does an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself choose to ignore those facts and insist that the DOJ is apolitical and only interested in fighting crime wherever it may be found?

I think the answer is TDS.

I believe it will be recognized as an authentic mental disorder. It will be especially acute upon the death of Trump, when sufferers no longer have a target for their repressed rage.

When that time comes, Please self-monitor for signs of excessive anger over small setbacks, and a compulsion to aggressively argue small points those around you have little interest in.

We were presented the proof of that when the Strozck/Page texts were released

That proved that Strozk and Page didn't like Trump. You're assuming, that a. Therefor it's true for the entire DOJ. and b. Not liking Trump means they weren't doing their job properly.

Guess what. The DOJ usually don't like those they suspect of committing crimes. That's why there's procedures and laws in place that govern how they have to do their job, and why there's both professional and personal consequences for those that don't follow them.

By the way, if the DOJ is acting political. Why was Durham allowed to continue? Or Weiss? Why is Menendez being indicted? Why Hunter?

when the FISA Court admonished the FBI

Sure they did. That still doesn't prove they went after Trump for political reasons just that they are lacks when it comes to doing due diligence. This was the conclusion of Horowitz.
Inspector General Horowitz’s conclusion that FBI abuses and failures were not the result of political bias has not swayed some officials.
Again, you simply assume to know a motive even when you can't reasonably infer such motive from the available facts.

Bovard in The Hill: Will FISA secrecy doom democracy? | Mises Institute

“Democracy Dies in the Darkness” is the proud motto of the Washington Post. But, considering the past week’s frenzy, the new motto for much of the media and

mises.org

But for more than a decade, the FISA court has repeatedly complained about deceptive FBI agents seeking turbo-charged secret FISA warrants. In 2002, the court revealed that FBI agents had false or misleading claims in 75 cases. In 2005, FISA chief judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly proposed requiring FBI agents to swear to the accuracy of the information they presented; that never happened because it could have “slowed such investigations drastically,” the Washington Post reported. So FBI agents continued to have a license to exploit FISA secrecy to lie to the judges.

Last year, a FISA court decision included a 10-page litany of FBI violations, which “ranged from illegally sharing raw intelligence with unauthorized third parties to accessing intercepted attorney-client privileged communications without proper oversight.” How many times did FBI agents make false claims to FISA judges while Comey was boss? It’s a secret. The FISA court also complained that the National Security Agency was guilty of “an institutional lack of candor” connected to “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue” — i.e, ravaging Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.

Syracuse University law school professor William Banks asserted, “I can't recall any instance in 40 years when there's been a partisan leaning of a FISA court judge when their opinions have been released." But this is only because, inside the Beltway, being pro-Leviathan is pragmatic, not partisan. The FISA court has repeatedly presumed that if the feds violate everyone’s privacy, they violate no one’s privacy -— so there is no constitutional problem.

There's been problems reported between FISA and the FBI LOOOOONG before Trump ever was President, and the violations occur apolitical.

when Kevin Clinesmith

Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty after the IG for the FBI flagged it, that's how the system is supposed to work, the discrepancy was found by the FBI itself and he's one guy. Again, you are making inferences for the entire FBI and DOJ based on facts that are WHOLY insufficient.

insist that the DOJ is apolitical

I insist I don't have anywhere near enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it is acting political. Remember me being careful before I state anything categorically?

In fact, indicting the president's son seems pretty strong evidence to the contrary.
The problem is, that you don't accept anything that is exculpatory, look for everything inculpatory and then insist you have proven your case. That is called motivated reasoning.

That's literally the basis of any conspiracy theory. Look for disjointed fact sets, splice them together until you come to the desired conclusion, in the meantime ignoring both simpler answers and any contradictory information.

If I don't know the answer for sure. I won't pretend I do. Try it sometimes. It'll prevent the begging of questions. Or putting up strawmen.

You said to me it's wrong to draw any inferences from the fact that Trump advocates absolute immunity, self-pardons, and hundreds of times of pleading the fifth. Yet you have no problem with stating categorically, not just drawing certain inferences but stating with absolute certainty that major government agencies and departments, abuse their power because of political leaning, on the basis of 3 people in those agencies. Two of which you cannot pin any overt act on. Just an accusation of expressing political bias in private texts.

That is such strong evidence other people have to be stupid or dishonest to not see it. I'm pretty sure you don't accept the proposition that the indictment of Hunter Biden PROVES that the DOJ is apolitical. And you'd be right, it doesn't.

Yet you think Kevin Clinesmith is sufficient to PROVE the entire DOJ is acting politically.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That proved that Strozk and Page didn't like Trump. You're assuming, that a. Therefor it's true for the entire DOJ. and b. Not liking Trump means they weren't doing their job properly.

We KNOW they didn’t do their job properly. We have lawyer Page instructing Agent Strozk to go easy on Hillary because she might be the next president.

Guess what. The DOJ usually don't like those they suspect of committing crimes. That's why there's procedures and laws in place that govern how they have to do their job, and why there's both professional and personal consequences for those that don't follow them.

They’re not supposed to presume guilt no matter how much personal dislike they have.

By the way, if the DOJ is acting political. Why was Durham allowed to continue? Or Weiss? Why is Menendez being indicted? Why Hunter?

Cover.

If not for the judge putting a stop to it, the DOJ was about to give Hunter a sweetheart deal unavailable to people not so protected.

Sure they did. That still doesn't prove they went after Trump for political reasons just that they are lacks when it comes to doing due diligence. This was the conclusion of Horowitz.
Inspector General Horowitz’s conclusion that FBI abuses and failures were not the result of political bias has not swayed some officials.
Again, you simply assume to know a motive even when you can't reasonably infer such motive from the available facts.

Bovard in The Hill: Will FISA secrecy doom democracy? | Mises Institute

“Democracy Dies in the Darkness” is the proud motto of the Washington Post. But, considering the past week’s frenzy, the new motto for much of the media and

mises.org

But for more than a decade, the FISA court has repeatedly complained about deceptive FBI agents seeking turbo-charged secret FISA warrants. In 2002, the court revealed that FBI agents had false or misleading claims in 75 cases. In 2005, FISA chief judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly proposed requiring FBI agents to swear to the accuracy of the information they presented; that never happened because it could have “slowed such investigations drastically,” the Washington Post reported. So FBI agents continued to have a license to exploit FISA secrecy to lie to the judges.

Last year, a FISA court decision included a 10-page litany of FBI violations, which “ranged from illegally sharing raw intelligence with unauthorized third parties to accessing intercepted attorney-client privileged communications without proper oversight.” How many times did FBI agents make false claims to FISA judges while Comey was boss? It’s a secret. The FISA court also complained that the National Security Agency was guilty of “an institutional lack of candor” connected to “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue” — i.e, ravaging Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.

Syracuse University law school professor William Banks asserted, “I can't recall any instance in 40 years when there's been a partisan leaning of a FISA court judge when their opinions have been released." But this is only because, inside the Beltway, being pro-Leviathan is pragmatic, not partisan. The FISA court has repeatedly presumed that if the feds violate everyone’s privacy, they violate no one’s privacy -— so there is no constitutional problem.

There's been problems reported between FISA and the FBI LOOOOONG before Trump ever was President, and the violations occur apolitical.

In the case of Trump it was clearly political, based on their own words.

Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty after the IG for the FBI flagged it, that's how the system is supposed to work, the discrepancy was found by the FBI itself and he's one guy. Again, you are making inferences for the entire FBI and DOJ based on facts that are WHOLY insufficient.

You seriously believe that Kleinsmith acted on his own? If so, what was his motivation, other than pleasing his Trump hating bosses? Why did he stick his neck out like that in the first place?

I insist I don't have anywhere near enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it is acting political. Remember me being careful before I state anything categorically?

In fact, indicting the president's son seems pretty strong evidence to the contrary.
The problem is, that you don't accept anything that is exculpatory, look for everything inculpatory and then insist you have proven your case. That is called motivated reasoning.

That's literally the basis of any conspiracy theory. Look for disjointed fact sets, splice them together until you come to the desired conclusion, in the meantime ignoring both simpler answers and any contradictory information.

If I don't know the answer for sure. I won't pretend I do. Try it sometimes. It'll prevent the begging of questions. Or putting up strawmen.

You said to me it's wrong to draw any inferences from the fact that Trump advocates absolute immunity, self-pardons, and hundreds of times of pleading the fifth. Yet you have no problem with stating categorically, not just drawing certain inferences but stating with absolute certainty that major government agencies and departments, abuse their power because of political leaning, on the basis of 3 people in those agencies. Two of which you cannot pin any overt act on. Just an accusation of expressing political bias in private texts.

No, sir, not just private political bias. There were calls to action and promises of action. “We’ll stop it.” What do you think he meant by that?

That is such strong evidence other people have to be stupid or dishonest to not see it. I'm pretty sure you don't accept the proposition that the indictment of Hunter Biden PROVES that the DOJ is apolitical. And you'd be right, it doesn't.

Yet you think Kevin Clinesmith is sufficient to PROVE the entire DOJ is acting politically.

Not just one thing. You have to look at everything in context. Look at all the leaks. They have always been anti-Trump. Yet the FBI insists in righteous tones that they hate leaks. Why don’t they hate leaks about Trump as much as I hate leaks about Hunter? They have managed to keep those from happening at all. that’s an agency in lockstep. That’s not a group group of professional investigators.

Can you provide any examples of FBI agents lying to help Trump‘s case? How about FBI agents and FBI lawyers promising each other to make sure Biden never becomes president? When it is as one-sided as it always is, it tells a thinking person something. I hope someday soon, you will be back in that category.