I never said they were. You seem to be "attempting to make claims that were never made and twist the words entirely into things you had hoped was said so you can attack made up things." You have to be pretty damn fast at ducking for your own point to fly over your head. You were ducking before you even hit post reply.
That was my exact thought. The moment Trump becomes the one raided everyone screams "foul play" even though that crook and con is a prime suspect for any FBI raid.
The FBI is absolutely not above reproach. However, we can't automatically assume they have acted in corrupt fashion in this case. We have seen no evidence of their corruption in this case at all. We have seen evidence that the've acted in an entirely correct, rule of law matter. 1. To get a warrant they have to show probable cause, explain what they are looking for and where in the location they expect the evidence to be found. The warrant was released. It said what they were looking for. It turns out that they did find exactly what they believed they were going to find. So it wasn't a fishing expedition. It was targeted and the information they had was accurate validating their probable cause. 2. The leader of the FBI was appointed by Trump. The head of the DOJ has a long history of being very cautious, if not overly cautious. It has come out recently that he took weeks deciding what to do. 3. The FBI did not announce or publicize serving the warrant. The only reason the media found out about was that Trump opted to publish it on social media. If not for that, it may well have gone completely unnoticed, at least for the time being. So there is a great deal pointing to them being accurate, by the book, and successful in obtaining and serving the warrant.
Who said that or was acting like that?? Of course the FBI, DOJ, and it's leadership can act politically. We ALL remember William freaking Barr. What we do realize though is that there is this thing call the United States Criminal Justice System. In in that criminal justice system there are things called judges. Then there is this thing called a jury. That is a system that most people here believe to have some credibility. So if the DOJ indict a former president, and are investigating in a way that clearly shows they have evidence of a crime.... WE TAKE NOTICE, and are allowed to talk about it. This is a criminal investigation clearly. This is not Bill Barr making public comments about a special prosecutor report before the public gets a chance to read it. It's not J. Edgar Hoover threatening politicians who make claims about his sexuality. It's not even James Comey speaking out about an investigation to say he wasn't going to indict, but that person he was investigating was bad. This is the DOJ and the FBI and this judge, and the grand jury.... DOING THEIR JOBS within the normal process of conducting a search, and showing the courts they have evidence of a crime in order to obtain that warrant.
Most of the Media has been calling bullshit even some on Fox. Not really much the media can do anyway IMO.
This doesn't dispel the notion there is political intrigue or bias at play. If the FBI or DOJ wanted to, the could find something on almost anyone. The number of laws on the books is staggering. It's extremely easy to violate a law. They make choices about who, what and when to investigate. People will, naturally, look at that with some suspicion given the history of the FBI.
Oh, right, clearly nobody. Not the pundits on television, not people in this thread. The FBI/DOJ have a long history of political intriguing and malfeasance. I don't see that being brought up much at all by some folks of a certain political persuasion.
If they wanted to make it a political spectacle, they themselves would have leaked or publicized the warrant's execution at Mar-a-Lago. They didn't. Trump did. A Trump appointed head of the FBI wouldn't have a bone to pick with Trump for no reason. I haven't seen anyone present a reason why he would target Trump. Garland has earned a reputation as a cautious and conservative prosecutor who doesn't rush into decisions. That all points in the direction of by the books. This isn't Hoover's FBI. I haven't seen any proof showing this was a political stunt.
Of course, and we should talk about what would happen IF they are doing this politically: -The grand jury will refuse to indict like with Andrew McCabe -The Federal Judge will not sign off on future warrants -They'll lose their case against Trump if they bring charges & vindicate Trump -They'll be investigated by Congress during oversight -The judge will be impeached if he was involved -They'll probably never have a job in law enforcement again -They could potentially bring charges on themselves in a future case or at least a civil defamation case I think you just aren't getting that the DOJ and FBI doing this 100% has repercussions unlike previous DOJ/FBI malfeasance such as Hoovers antics or Bill Barr doing things like scheming with a sitting president on a pardon scheme like he did with Iran Contra. In this case, if the DOJ and the FBI are pulling a political game of malfeasance, they'll pay a HUGE price. That's why nobody in the media and here is really going there, and we just assume that they aren't going to go to a federal judge, and a grand jury with some political with hunt scheme. If they wanted to play politics with investigations, there's a 100 other ways to do that without taking this kind of a risk where they are handing things over to the courts in a criminal probe, and likely indicting where they are forced to show their cards at multiple levels and ultimately with the public. I don't get how you don't understand that this is different than political malfeasance. This is a huge risk for the credibility of the justice system, and any objective person would realize that, and assume they obviously have SOMETHING here.
The DOJ/FBI doesn't need to do anything technically illegal or improper to let political bias influence their course of conduct. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of laws on the books. If the FBI/DOJ wanted to crawl up anyone's *** they could find something. You could posit, "they are just doing their job" for almost anything but the idea that political considerations and bias don't go into who to investigate, what to investigate and how vigorously to investigate it is off the mark.
That may be true, but after an attempt to steal an election, a coup and insurrection, and still saying he won the vote, Trump is definitely a man of interest in many investigations. The real question is why his home wasn't raided after he packed his bags and left. The real question is why they catered to his lying crooked ass for months giving him chances to return documents before finally initiating a search. The real question is why he took boxes and boxes of documents with him. If anyone would sell secrets to the Saudis, North Korea, or Russia Trump would. A pathological liar with such a lust for power would do things most Americans would never even consider doing.
At least we know our Republican posters agree that trump was so incompetent he couldn’t even get his head of FBI appointee right.
I brought this up in another thread but to repeat it here. Back in 2015 there was a lot of reports that many in the FBI were biased against Hillary Clinton. I don’t recall much concern then. Back then Trump and his followers were cheering on the FBI and certainly the likes of Ron Johnson weren’t talking about how dangerously biased the FBI were. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump
I hear this all the time (not about this case but in general). Sounds good but where’s the beef? Tell us one law that was used in a political way here. Should be relatively easy with thousands to choose from.
