Joe Biden is sloppy in his name calling and it appears he intends to use the awesome powers of the Federal government to persecute Americans for ideological reasons.
In the video, Assistant AG Matthew Olsen speaks ambiguously about “domestic violent extremists.” We can’t tell who, exactly, he is talking about, but we do know that many are citizens and DOJ will target them for their politics.
As a rule it is probably a good thing for law enforcement to conduct social surveillance, but Gabbard is correct to warn that the surveillance powers can be abused. There is little reason to think that Biden won’t abuse them.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Tulsi is always on point. Itâs why Democrats donât like her. đ
LikeLike
Maybe she is not particularly liked by a lot of people because she has traded her integrity, if not her soul, for the lucre of a being a Fox News / Right-wing troll as evidenced by the tweet above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the point was?
Abuse of surveillance powers? True, that is a problem that most nations have to deal with. Thatâs partly why our prisons are filled with low level drug addicts.
But with conspiracies (the legal term, not ANON nuts) infiltration and surveillance are a good way to prevent bloodshed rather than wait for the violence and then act.
Biden may or may not abuse the surveillance system, but he has kept a hands off policy with the DOJ in comparison with the past president. He kept shuffling the deck of his appointments looking for a Royal Flush.
He got mostly flush thanks to a sycophant turned born again politician in Barr.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “But with conspiracies (the legal term, not ANON nuts) infiltration and surveillance are a good way to prevent bloodshed rather than wait for the violence and then act.”
Since conspiracy per se is not illegal, law enforcement has to wait until a crime is committed. That’s the rule.
Or, at least it used to be.
LikeLike
“Since conspiracy per se is not illegal”
I suggest you check your law books. Here, study up . . .
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/conspiracy.html
Short version: “conspiracy” becomes a crime when (a) two or more people agree to do something unlawful and (b) some acts are done in furtherance of the conspiracy. The acts need not be illegal in themselves.
For example, a group of people agree to attack the Congress with baseball bats and bear spray. No crime. They buy bear spray and/or travel to Washington. Crime of conspiracy is now prosecutable even though buying bear spray and travelling to DC are legal in themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I said, “conspiracy per se is not illegal.”
In your examples, conspiracy to break the law is illegal and would be the crime that must be committed before law enforcement could act.
Mr. Rothman’s credo that it is better to catch criminals before they commit crimes is not practical.
LikeLike
It happens a lot. There have been terrorist plots averted because the authorities got tips or an informant. Those people were prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime.
We donât want to wait until a bomb goes off if we can arrest the bomb maker and his cohorts first.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “We donât want to wait until a bomb goes off if we can arrest the bomb maker and his cohorts first.”
How do you know when the secret police are infiltrating and surveilling too many potential criminals; what is the limiting principle?
LikeLike
” . . .the crime that must be committed before law enforcement could act”
Uh, if by “act” you mean “prosecute” then sure.
But if “act” means gather intelligence, monitor social media, attend meetings, etc. then they SHOULD act when malignant actors are identified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “But if ‘act’ means gather intelligence, monitor social media, attend meetings, etc. then they SHOULD act when malignant actors are identified.”
Again, what is the limiting principle? Should law enforcement spy on everyone to catch malignant actors?
LikeLike
Gabbard/Manchin 24
The only Democrat ticket I would support over Trump if he gets the nomination.
LikeLike
You seem to like losers.
Your dream ticket is one of the few that one can imagine that Trump could beat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But they’re 2 of only a handful of Democrats who understand the Constitution and are willing to follow it.
LikeLike
“Willing to follow it. . .”
You mean like controlling guns with respect to a “well-regulated militia?” You know, like the Constitution makes crystal clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Argue that point with SCOTUS
LikeLike
“Argue that point with SCOTUS”
What would be the point? Its majority is corrupt.
(See how easy that is.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where is the filibuster in the Constitution?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Same question 3 times today after being answered as many times last week
LikeLike
Yet it is NOT in the Constitution and therefore, can be changed. If it were being changed for the benefit of YOUR position, I believe you would have no issue with it. Like you said to Paul, it depends on whose ox is being gored.
LikeLike
Nope, I was against abandoning the filibuster when Bush was President and remain so consistently regardless of who has the upper hand.
Slipping through major changes in the economy and law without wide support is a bad idea no matter what the issue.
The filibuster requires both sides to seek input from the other.
LikeLike
Alexander Hamilton disagrees with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He disagreed with Arron Burr too.
LikeLike
The fact that Trump could win in ’24 is testament to how badly the Democrats are screwing things up.
LikeLike
What exactly is “badly” screwed up that was not caused by the emergence of Omicron? I keep hearing how bad things are, but the economy is going well, DOW is up 40%, unemployment less the 4%, wages improving, no troops are dying pointless deaths, no widespread civil disorder like in the last administration, America is back in the Paris Accord like most Americans want, bi-partisan infrastructure bill that Trump could not deliver is in the works, vaccinations are there and free for everyone, etc.
So, what does “badly” “screwing things up” refer to? Yes, the virus has caused global supply chain issues, problems for schools, and overflowing hospitals. Is that what you mean?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We canât tell who, exactly, he is talking about, but we do know that many are citizens and DOJ will target them for their politics.”
If their “politics” includes the idea that it is time for the violent overthrow of our government, they SHOULD be targeted. Their militias, terrorist cells and organizations SHOULD be infiltrated. Evidence of their turning their “politics” into action SHOULD be gathered and when it is, they SHOULD be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As noted, secret police can be beneficial. They can also be harmful. I think Biden is too weak and too mean to restrain the secret police who work for him.
LikeLike
“As noted, secret police can be beneficial. They can also be harmful. I think Biden is too weak and too mean to restrain the secret police who work for him.”
You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, no matter how baseless.
BTW, “too mean?” What is this – Fourth grade?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Who watches the watchmen?” is an old question that some attribute to the Roman poet Juvenal. Joe Biden’s mean-spiritedness as Tulsi Gabbard describes it makes him unlikely to be effective in a watching-the-watchers role.
LikeLike
“Joe Bidenâs mean-spiritedness”
Total bullshit. What is wrong with you people? You idolize a con man who truly is petty and mean-spirited but try to label a decent, loyal, well-liked public servant with such slanders.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “What is wrong with you people?”
You.
LikeLike
“You”
Typically silly response.
BTW, it was a 100% rhetorical question. No answer required. What is wrong with you people is painfully obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “What is wrong with you people is painfully obvious.”
Whatever.
LikeLike
Unlike Trump who attempted to force his own version of the secret police to condemn political opponents?
LikeLiked by 1 person
â⊠has his AG target Americans as domestic terrorists.â
Well, those folks who trashed the Capitol looking for Pence fit the definition of terrorists by using violence to overturn a political situation not to their personal liking.
Patriots (or Americans for that matter) they were not, unless they played ball in New England.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Well, those folks who trashed the Capitol looking for Pence fit the definition of terrorists by using violence to overturn a political situation not to their personal liking.”
So do Antifa and BLM.
LikeLike
“So do Antifa and BLM”
Childish.
There is a world of difference between terrorism and hooliganism.
Whatever violence fringe elements of either group may have engaged in was NOT directed at overthrowing the government or attacking elected our representatives going about the business of the nation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But they did not attack the Capitol.
I won’t defend Antifa, they are reactive street fighters just like all the other gangs except they are not nearly as organized.
BLM has been maligned by the right, in my opinion, just like other social justice organizations.
With regards to conspiracy, it has been the law for a long time that conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime on its own.
If you plot to rob a bank, and corroborating evidence exists, you can be charged and convicted whether or not you actually robbed the bank.
There have been numerous terrorist plots over the decades that have been thwarted and the miscreants charged with conspiracy to commit terror, or murder, or rob and after conviction, sentenced to decades in prison.
The charges against Rhodes, et.al. apparently have evidence pointing towards a planned operation. More will come out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “But they did not attack the Capitol.”
I submit they meet the definition of domestic terrorists. I think you and Mr. Murphy assume that all domestic terrorists are right wingers.
LikeLike
Personally, I think all domestic terrorists are criminals. The gangs who are âstanding byâ are just losers and wannabe common criminals. Every single one of them. Left or right.
Renaming them as militias and European Chauvinists is gilding the poison ivy with foolâs gold.
When some of those recently arrested decide that 20+ years is not worth it to follow Trump, I think we will see some interesting testimonies. Flynn, Bannon, Stone, Jordan, Gaetz, Brooks, Giuliani and the rest of the wannabe traitors are not very comfortable now I suspect.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I submit you are wrong.
Very LAME whataboutism.
Hooliganism is not terrorism.
There is no equivalent anywhere on the left to the organized effort to subvert the election as happened on January 6th and, for that matter, on November 19th, 2000. Terrorism is trying to accomplish through violence political goals that you cannot achieve peacefully.
BTW, Antifa is hardly an organization, just a very loose label that means “Anti-Fascist.” They generally are not seen until the White Supremacist Antisemitic Fascists take to the streets.
BLM is a peaceful and righteous movement constantly smeared with racist lies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “There is no equivalent anywhere on the left to the organized effort to subvert the election as happened on January 6th…”
I can think of a number of “equivalents,” but all of them are far worse than the J6 riot.
LikeLike
Yes?
LikeLike
The Democrats successfully subverted the election by using the pandemic to change the rules of the election to allow their ballot harvesting operations.
LikeLike
So we hundreds, probably thousands, of volunteers, appointed and elected officials in on this ballot harvesting scheme.
All committed to silence.
And nobody leaked.
Amazing, unbelievable and obviously totally false.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No silence needed. I was done right out there in public view.
LikeLike
What was done? Where was it done? Who did whatever it was where it was done?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In more than one state, it is clear that the Democrats had prepared for ballot harvesting before the “emergency” changes were unlawfully made to allow it.
LikeLike
Name the states and who planned it. Do you have any evidence other than guessing?
AZ and WI both had extensive investigations costing millions by Republicans. Both found neither fraud nor over or under counts with regards to population. Both issued detailed reports. WI report went so far as to blame the fraud hoax as a result of Republican fund raising schemes.
So what do you have as evidence?
LikeLiked by 2 people
So, sticking to the Big Lie.
Not too pitiful. Real men gracefully admit when they have lost.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Yes?”
Yes. Two clear “equivalents” are:
The Weather Underground bombing of the Capitol.
There have been other bombings and shootings at the Capitol. While not so clearly committed by domestic terrorists, they were far worse attacks than J6.
I think the George Flynn riots were “equivalents,” too, in many respects.
LikeLike
Clear equivalents?
A nut job who shot up a ballgame and bombings from 6 decades ago.
In other words, you have zilch.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “In other words, you have zilch.”
What I have is enough to refute Mr. Murphy’s claim.
LikeLike
Tried you best with the Google, I see, but we were talking about modern times and organized sedition.
I grant you that bombing the Capitol (no one was injured) was an act of terrorism six decades ago. But your attempt to bring up the individual nut who shot up that baseball game is a major fail. For every such attack on a Republican I can cite a nut attacking a Democrat. Ever heard of Gabby Giffords?
In recent decades it has only been Republicans who have organized violence to stop election processes. It succeeded once – Bush and failed once – Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whatever, Mr. Murphy. Now that your claim has been refuted, you don’t stand behind your own words.
LikeLike
You failed. You just can’t admit it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Refuted?
You are a very silly fellow. But, hey, we already knew that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a shame you waste our time calling me silly.
LikeLike
“It is a shame you waste our time calling me silly.”
The far bigger shame is your wasting our time BEING silly.
Gabbard’s tweet is 100% stupid, ugly and controversial. Obviously.
You people do NOT under rights – civil and natural – better than everyone else. Obviously.
Events from 60 years ago and a single deranged gunman do not refute the fact that no one on the left is comparable to the organized terrorists who have directly attacked our government to seize power. Obviously.
And on and on and on, day after day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gabbardâs tweet is 100% smart, beautiful and non-controversial. Obviously.
Us people do understand rights â civil and natural â just fine. Obviously.
The events I cited absolutely refute the categorical statement that “There is NO equivalent ANYWHERE on the left to the organized effort to subvert the election as happened on January 6th…” Obviously.
Furthermore, your assertion that J6 represented an “organized effort to subvert the election” is unproved.
I have no more time for you today.
LikeLike
…”non-controversial.”…
Really? If it is so non-controversial, why is this thread even happening?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I said ANYWHERE, not ANYWHEN.
If we are going ANYWHEN, then there has never been a more massive amount of organized violence, terror, and sedition by “conservatives” than the one that started in 1861.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The responses to this post fascinate me.
Tulsi Gabbard didn’t say anything particularly controversial, and I was careful to frame her tweet in a way that allowed for common ground to emerge among partisans. BUT, almost no one wanted to step forward into the common-ground area.
I am particularly shocked at the willingness of some to embrace police-state behavior. I have the strong impression that civil rights no longer matter to these members of the Forum community. Worse, I think the very concept of rights, civil or natural, is lost on them.
Something like that is the message Gabbard tried to convey. Unsuccessfully here, it would seem.
LikeLike
“Tulsi Gabbard didnât say anything particularly controversial”
That is absurdly stupid. Her tweet was ignorant, dishonest, insulting and 100% controversial by design. That is what trolls do.
As for only you people understanding rights – civil or natural – also stupid. If you were as understanding of rights as you claim you would know that there is no right to commit violence because you cannot get what you want legally. The right to free speech does not protect conspiracy to commit crime. The right to assemble does not protect rampaging through hallowed public buildings. The right to petition the government does not protect trying to murder elected officials.
But go ahead, keep trying to turn these seditious shitheads of January 6th into victims and martyrs. It is good for a laugh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Her tweet was ignorant, dishonest, insulting and 100% controversial by design.”
So. Here we are 40 messages down in the thread and you finally address the substance of the post. But not really. Your criticisms are shallow.
Do you really believe that secret police are beneficial without risk? That is the issue.
LikeLike
Secret police?
You mean the lawful activities of our security services to protect us from terrorism? If that is what you mean, then, yes, the benefits outweigh the risks. Those “secret police” have long warned us that the greatest danger we face comes from seditious Americans. January 6th proved those warnings were accurate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
J6 proves our security services were either incompetent or complicit.
LikeLike
â J6 proves our security services were either incompetent or complicit.â
How so? Overwhelmed might be a better description. Perhaps a real president might have acted sooner instead of hours after the fighting started.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “How so?”
Because prior to the events of J6, law enforcement reported their belief that no threats were imminent.
LikeLike
We will know more about who knew what when in the near future.
Al we know so far is that there seemed to mixed messages from domestic intel.
There is also the issue of âopticsâ and who might have voiced concern over making the area look like a Third World election day with troops everywhere. I would be willing to bet that there were folks who could not believe that team Trump and the gangs might actually attack and was the last ditch effort to overturn the election illegally. A lot of the emails, texts and memos about this plan by Eastman, et.al. were not known.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL!
You people are great at talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Out of one side comes that all we had on 1/6 was a peaceful rally that got a little rambunctious with some trespassing, selfie ops, and hi-jinks.
Out of the other side comes the charge that our security services are incompetent because they did not catch the organized violent conspiracy that was unleashed on Congress.
LikeLiked by 2 people