Further weaponization of DOJ

DOJ subpoenas Trump allies for being Trump allies

Now the Jan 6 probe has been expanded to intimidate anyone who donates significantly to Trump’s PAC. This is blatant political intimidation and violation of the 1st Amendment.

79 thoughts on “Further weaponization of DOJ

  1. “This is blatant political intimidation and violation of the 1st Amendment.”

    Uh, no. It is what happens when you commit crimes. Believe it or not, planning a bloody insurrection, defrauding people on line, and/or creating fake electors is even worse than selling single cigarettes on the streets of New York.

    By the way, your source is a joke which anyone who is not a fool will know from the opening sentence of the story which it laughable refers to “since-debunked allegations of Trump-Russia collusion.”

    Liked by 3 people

      1. “Again, the people being subpoenaed were not even there on Jan 6 and many were simply PAC donors.”

        You have got the wrong information about who has been subpoenaed. That is what happens when you rely on lying liars instead of bona fide news outlets.

        Not being on the scene on January 6th is completely irrelevant. The three crimes being investigated did not require any such presence. And what you leave out of your bullshit is that every warrant and subpoena is based on evidence of some level of involvement in these crimes.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. We have seen the judge shopping and deception the FBI as employed in getting court orders.

          What crime can someone be guilty of by contributing to a PAC? Is questioning the honesty of an election now a crime? If so, there are a lot of Democrats in trouble too.

          Like

          1. Judge shopping? You mean like seeking out the laughable Aileen M. Cannon? I notice that – unlike you did for Judge Reinhart – you have not called for her to recuse herself even though appointed by Trump on his way out the door. Are you a hypocrite?

            Again, you are misinformed about the recipients of the latest round of subpoenas. Can you name even one whose ONLY involvement was making a donation? The actual recipients are people with knowledge of the planning for January 6th, the creation of fake electors, and the fraudulent Big Lie fund raising.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. How did Trump judge shop Cannon. As I understood it she was next in the rotation.

            You can seek out a judge, or magistrate, when you are seeking a warrant, but suits are assigned to judges.

            Like

          3. “He handles administrative matters, but not trials.”

            Uh, request for a Special Master is an administrative matter and is not a trial. He did not rule on the Special Master because he was not asked to.

            From the National Review . . .

            “I doubt there will be much squawking over Trump’s gambit in filing a separate civil lawsuit rather than simply moving for a special-master appointment before the magistrate judge (Bruce Reinhart) who issued the warrant. By this maneuver, Trump’s got the question in front of a Trump-appointed district judge rather than Reinhart, whom he colorably claims is biased against him.”

            So, the fact of venue “shopping” is confirmed by the leading “conservative” publication. Something you say is “corrupt” if the government does it.

            https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/unpacking-judge-cannons-order-for-a-special-master-in-trump-search/

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Trump had to sue to get a special master appointed,

            There is no such thing as a request for a special master when the DOJ does not join in the request.

            So Trump filed suit to COMPEL a special master, That requires a trial judge. Trump had no way to know what judge would get the suit on their docket.

            Like

          5. The DOJ filed an answer to the request. No suit was filed or required.

            And they have actually said yes to one of the two SM nominees put forth by TFG’s legal team. TFG said NO to both nominees of DOJ.

            Lying lies and the liars who tell them….

            Liked by 1 person

          6. There was NO lawsuit. Court motions were all that were necessary and that process was followed.

            Unless you have a copy of the lawsuit, I suggests you quit referring to something that does NOT exist.

            They file an answer to the motion. Once Cannon ruled on the motion to appoint an SM, both sides submitted 2 names as nominations to serve. TFG’s team rejected BOTH of DOJ’s nominees. DOJ said YES to one of Trump’s.

            You are slipping. BIGLY.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Prior to the lawsuit, they just said no.”

            There was NOTHING to just say no to. Duh. No request was made prior to the lawsuit. BEFORE the DOJ gave ANY answer to the suit, the jackass Trump judge said she was inclined to appoint one. What a dope!

            When DOJ formally replied they demolished the logic and facts used by Trump’s lawyers but they were ignored by the judge. DOJ had now appealed her really stupid and partisan decision and they will prevail.

            Like

          8. “Special masters is such cases are the normal process.”

            No, they are not.

            Special masters are normal in cases involving the retrieval of documents from a lawyer’s office. They are not normal when seizing records from a business or home. Furthermore, the search warrant anticipated the possibility that attorney-client records might be mixed in and specified the procedure for isolating them. THAT is the normal procedure.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Trump had to sue to get a special master appointed”

            Bullshit. Trump could have asked Judge Reinhart to appoint one. If the DOJ had objected, it was still Judge Reinhart’s call. So you are just plain wrong. Again. Or is the writer for the National Review “corrupt” when he makes it clear that going around Reinhart was a deliberate choice?

            It is just about useless to discuss anything with people who will not even accept their own favorite outlets as sources of valid information.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “Once again, Reinhart is a Magistrate, not a Judge.”

            So you know more about the law than the National Review which wrote that Trump avoided the option of “simply moving for a special-master appointment before the magistrate judge (Bruce Reinhart) who issued the warrant.”

            Those “facts” you pull out of your ass are ever so handy.

            Like

          11. “And if Reinhart called for a SM, the DOJ could have just ignored him. HE ISN’T A JUDGE”

            Uh, bullshit. TOTAL BULLSHIT.

            They would have the choice of following his ruling or appealing his ruling. Ignoring his ruling would NOT be an option. That is just plain dumb. Not only are they not free to simply ignore such rulings, doing so would ruin any prosecution they might have been preparing.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “To COMPEL a special master required filing a suit.”

            Where do you get this bullshit. Trump made no request in Reinhart’s court for a Special Master. There was nothing in THAT court for DOJ to challenge. And even if they had, it was still up to the judge to decide. Dealing with conflicting motions is part of the job.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. There was no SUIT! They filed a freaking motion with the judge. Proper legal procedure.

            The DOJ is under no obligation to grant a request from an attorney. When they said no, the legal team filed a motion with the court. Where do you get the idea that some sort of lawsuit was filed? It didn’t happen as it wasn’t required.

            And why do you refuse to acknowledge that the legal team filed miserably by waiting for two weeks to request the SM? That should have been step ONE.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. That is a distinction without a difference, Reinhart still could not make a binding ruling on a motion or a suit.

            Magistrates have limited administrative authority. It was probably pushing the limits for him to authorize the search, A warrant with that much political impact should have been approved by a District COurt judge at least.

            Like

          15. “That is a distinction without a difference, Reinhart still could not make a binding ruling on a motion or a suit.”

            Absolutely FALSE.
            His rulings can be appealed but so can the ruling of any judge.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. “They have authority to issue warrants, conduct preliminary proceedings in criminal cases, such as initial appearances and arraignments, and hear cases involving petty offenses committed on federal lands. In most districts, magistrate judges handle pretrial motions and hearings in civil and criminal cases. While most civil cases are tried by district judges, magistrate judges may also preside over civil trials if all parties consent.”

            A binding ruling on a Special Master is clearly outside the authority of a magistrate, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

            https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-judges

            Like

          17. “A binding ruling on a Special Master is clearly outside the authority of a magistrate, no matter how much you wish otherwise.”

            Not according to the link you just provided. A request for a Special Master to screen evidence IS a pre-trial motion. And again, what makes you think your knowledge is superior to that of the staff at the National Review. They are VERY Trump friendly but they make it clear that going around Judge Reinhart was a deliberate stratagem.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “This is blatant political intimidation and violation of the 1st Amendment.”

    Indeed.

    What would be the harm if DOJ simply stopped prosecuting Trump and his supporters?

    Like

      1. “What would be the harm if DOJ simply stopped prosecuting Trump and his supporters?”
        Stupid question.

        “No harm other than to the Democrat’s fall campaign.”
        Stupid answer.

        The correct answer to the stupid question is that the principle of the Rule of Law and the ideal that No One is above the law would be grievously harmed. Obviously.

        This would not be impinging on the 2022 election if the Republicans had stood up for the Rule of Law when Trump was caught extorting Ukraine for personal advantage or when he tried to sabotage the election results through mob violence. They had their chances to do the right thing. They didn’t. So now they have this albatross around their necks. As they should.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. “It has not been proven that Trump broke any laws”

            Actually, it has been proven. His extortion of Ukraine was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

            Leaving that crime aside, there is plenty of probable cause to believe that he has committed many others. Bringing the proof of his crimes to the courts is what this process is about. That is how it works in every criminal case.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. If you paid attention to news reports (not opinion pieces) that have detailed the issues at hand, you wouldn’t have to ask that question.

            If you are too lazy to prove me wrong, I ain’t doing your leg work.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “the principle of the Rule of Law and the ideal that No One is above the law would be grievously harmed.”

        I don’t see how. It seems more likely to me that people would simply forget about Jan. 6 and Donald Trump.

        Like

        1. “I don’t see how.”

          Maybe try a little harder?

          Or, you could man up and admit that you have been the victim of a cynical con man leaving you bereft of reason and even of common sense? You would not be alone. Millions are in the same boat.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “You have nothing substantive to say?”

            Apparently nothing that you are capable of understanding. I am not surprised. After all, it was you who raised the incredibly stupid question in the first place.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Graham has certainly helped get the single issue abortion voters to the polls. A huge political blunder and probably unconstitutional as well as Dobbs clearly made it a state matter.

          Like

    1. What would be the harm, indeed.

      The centuries long peaceful transfers of power would have no meaning anymore. For that matter, elections would be just a like most dictatorships, a total sham. If results are not to an incumbents liking, just call up and threaten state officials.

      Historical documentation would be up to the whims and fantasies of each president.

      National security would be compromised as classification means nothing after hiding secrets in desks, closets, and wherever. Wave a wand, and even I could have access to intelligence secrets.

      Falsifying loan applications as well as tax declarations would be acceptable.

      Weaponizing the DOJ would become the norm as in “my attorneys general”.

      Recruiting armed gangs to “stand by” for a president would have no consequences.

      I think the key word is “precedence”. As in “Trump got away with it, so can I”.

      BTW, “supporters” sounds like the average voters or jock straps. The subpoenas to testify about 1/6 are Trumps closest powerbrokers, allies and advisors. Phony elector slates and illegal plans to overturn the election are in play.

      We pride ourselves on adherence to the Rule of Law. Ignoring all these illegalities because Trump was once a government employee with broad supervisory powers would be an affront to all Americans.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. LOL!

          “Allies” is not a synonym for “co-conspirators.”

          There was a criminal plot to bring forward slates of fake Electors that the Vice President would be intimidated into accepting. Anyone who had knowledge of this plot should be compelled to testify about what they knew or did. Or, they can take the Fifth.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Creating and submitting false electors contrary to the express will of the people is against the law.

          Democrats wrapping themselves in the flag? Coming from a person who supports a president referring to folks as patriots who beat police half to death while carrying confederate colors and demanding the head of our VP…priceless.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. RE: “Creating and submitting false electors contrary to the express will of the people is against the law.”

          There was no attempt to do that.

          Like

          1. I disagree.

            https://www.justsecurity.org/81939/timeline-false-alternate-slate-of-electors-scheme-donald-trump-and-his-close-associates/

            “That day, in several states that Biden had won, Republicans met to sign certificates declaring that they were the “duly elected and qualified” members of the Electoral College and falsely declaring Trump the winner of their state. They sent their documents to the National Archives.

            In the runup to Jan. 6, 2021, these false certificates were used in an effort to claim that Vice President Mike Pence could decide either not to recognize any electors from these “disputed states” (meaning an outright Trump win) or else delay the certification of the election.

            In a civil case earlier this month, federal district court judge David O. Carter described the alternate electors scheme as “a critical objective” of the criminal conspiracy in which President Donald Trump and lawyer John Eastman likely engaged.”

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “There was no attempt to do that.”

            What freaking world are you living in? Truth has shown time and again the fake electors were collected and prepared for delivery to Congress. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “I disagree.”

            Your evidence is smoke and mirrors. The alleged “conspiracy” consisted of entirely lawful actions that would have required state legislature approvals to succeed in changing the electoral college result. Those approvals never materialized.

            A number of senators on Jan. 6 tried to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of the electoral slates — again a lawful effort. Had the capitol riot not disrupted the proceedings, the senators’ effort might have been successful, or not.

            You are alleging crimes that haven’t been proved and probably cannot be proved.

            Like

          4. …” that would have required state legislature approvals “…

            Yet a Pennsylvania Representative attempted to deliver a slate of fake electors to the VP, through the office of Ron Johnson.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Delusional claptrap.

            Babbit dies because she was committing a crime and threatening the lives of those in Congress and the police sworn to protect them.

            Screw you delusions own up to it and realize that what Happened on January 6th was an abomination to this country, not some peaceful tour group run amok.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. There would have been every bit as much justification for shooting literally thousands of BLM and Antifa protestors.

            110 lb, unarmed, Babbitt was the only person through the door and was not approaching the officer when he shot her.

            Yet he was cleared without even being questioned.

            Like

          3. “There would have been every bit as much justification for shooting literally thousands of BLM and Antifa protestors.”

            Bullshit.

            Never has any law enforcement officer stood between BLM protesters and someone they were trying to kill. But in that vein, there were literally hundreds of thugs who should have been met with gunfire that day in the Capitol. If they had been black, they would have been.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Yeah, that 110 lb unarmed woman was going to run amok among those Senators breaking their necks with her bare hands,

            Bullshit, she was murdered by a MAGA hater.

            Like

          5. “Bullshit, she was murdered by a MAGA hater.”

            The circumstances of Babbitt’s death are known to all of us. We all saw how it went down. You can spew your lies and silly racist opinions until Hell freezes over. It is your reputation that is going down the toilet when you do, so have at it.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “110 lb unarmed woman, by herself, not moving toward the cop.”

            “110 lb unarmed woman”
            YOU know what she weighed and that she was unarmed. The officers forming the last line of defense did not.

            “by herself”
            Hardly, she was the point person of a mob.

            “not moving toward the cop.”
            False. The officer was just behind the barrier that was being smashed and Babbitt was vaulting over it towards him.

            You people are beyond absurd. You think any lies you spin up have all the weight of evidence. In this case, evidence anybody can see with their own eyes.

            And, truth be told, your obvious double standard for police conduct puts the lie to all your protests of not being racists. A black man showing the slightest disrespect or resistance to the police is a righteous kill but this white woman rampaging through the Capitol at the head of mob was “murdered” by a hater.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Ashli Babbett was killed.”

            And dozens of police officers were hospitalized.

            It was NOT peaceful, you dope.

            It was an attempt to illegally stay in power through violence. After a battle lasting hours, the attempt was suppressed. I call it a failed coup. You can call it whatever floats your boat. And, as those of us who paid attention to the hearings know, it was carefully planned.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Transfer of power was complete. Clinton had conceded long ago, the transition teams had been working for months, electors accepted and the inauguration took place.

          That a few dumpsters were set on fire and a few clashes in the streets took place did not interfere with the transfer of power.

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s