The Justice Department Was Dangerous Before Trump. It's Out of Control Now

[AUFAN78 4,161]

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-justice-department-was-dangerous-dbe

[AUDub 11,974]

If he thinks what's happening with Trump is an overreach then he should make an argument for it instead of dancing around the point.

If they were out to get Trump they wouldn't have asked for the documents on multiple occasions first. 

[AUFAN78 4,161]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

If he thinks what's happening with Trump is an overreach then he should make an argument for it instead of dancing around the point.

If they were out to get Trump they wouldn't have asked for the documents on multiple occasions first. 

The story isn't about Trump, but rather a dangerous federal law enforcement bureaucracy. But Trump lol. 

 

[AURex 2,262]

Yeah, the DOJ is really dangerous when it carefully, methodically investigates criminal activity, applies law in the courts, and indicts those who break federal law

[AUFAN78 4,161]

8 minutes ago, AURex said:

Yeah, the DOJ is really dangerous when it carefully, methodically investigates criminal activity, applies law in the courts, and indicts those who break federal law

Reading comprehension is important.

[AURex 2,262]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Reading comprehension is important.

I agree. I read it. I understood it. I stand by my comment. My response is -- critical reading is important.

 

[AUFAN78 4,161]

1 minute ago, AURex said:

I agree. I read it. I understood it. I stand by my comment. My response is -- critical reading is important.

 

Then I'd suggest you take your own advice. 

[AUDub 11,974]

52 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

The story isn't about Trump, but rather a dangerous federal law enforcement bureaucracy. But Trump lol. 

Did you, uh, read your own link?

Quote

Now, Trump’s behavior is eccentric at best and even some sympathetic defense lawyers I talked to suggested this case involving classified material raised “interesting” questions about the difficulty of dealing with such issues in an ordinary criminal court. But the argument that the ex-president needs to be jailed posthaste is a little hard to take seriously when FBI sources are, once again, illegally leaking secrets about their investigative targets as they pursue Trump for… mishandling secrets.

This article is based on his assumption that the DOJ wants to jail Trump. There are no examples of overreach to be found in this case, so he's cherry picked a strawman. 

The only one who did the overreaching is Trump, full stop.

[AUFAN78 4,161]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Did you, uh, read your own link?

This article is based on his assumption that the DOJ wants to jail Trump. There are no examples of overreach to be found in this case, so he's cherry picked a strawman. 

The only one who did the overreaching is Trump, full stop.

The larger question is did you? 

The current Trump investigation is just the latest chapter of a long-brewing civil liberties nightmare.

The Trump case is almost incidental to this wider story of extralegal short-cuts, intimidation, improper searches, and especially, a constant, intensifying effort at discrediting the adversarial system in favor of an executive-branch-only vision of the law, in which your right to stand before a judge or jury would be replaced by secret bureaucratic decisions. “Trump has become the way they sell this,” says one defense attorney. “But it’s not about Trump. If you focus on Trump, you’ll miss how serious this is. And it started a long time ago.” When? “Go back to 9/11,” he says. “You’ll see.”

The articles goes on to discuss cases highlighting the problem. Perhaps read it in its entirety it would make sense? Trump is used as an example, not the overall theme.

“When you have principles,” says Flowers, “sometimes those principles even protect people you don’t like.” But we need them, and if we don’t protect them, we’ll all lose them.

 

[homersapien 12,262]

10 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

The larger question is did you? 

The current Trump investigation is just the latest chapter of a long-brewing civil liberties nightmare.

The Trump case is almost incidental to this wider story of extralegal short-cuts, intimidation, improper searches, and especially, a constant, intensifying effort at discrediting the adversarial system in favor of an executive-branch-only vision of the law, in which your right to stand before a judge or jury would be replaced by secret bureaucratic decisions. “Trump has become the way they sell this,” says one defense attorney. “But it’s not about Trump. If you focus on Trump, you’ll miss how serious this is. And it started a long time ago.” When? “Go back to 9/11,” he says. “You’ll see.”

The articles goes on to discuss cases highlighting the problem. Perhaps read it in its entirety it would make sense? Trump is used as an example, not the overall theme.

“When you have principles,” says Flowers, “sometimes those principles even protect people you don’t like.” But we need them, and if we don’t protect them, we’ll all lose them.

 

If you want to argue the Justice Dept overstepped their authority in the past, then argue it with facts.  (There have been such cases, as with J.Edgar Hoover and the civil rights movement.)

If you want to argue they are overstepping their authority now with Trump argue it with facts.

Presenting a blizzard of BS and opinion from some "talking head" is absolutely useless.

Edited September 21, 2022 by homersapien

[AURex 2,262]

7 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Then I'd suggest you take your own advice. 

I have a BA from Auburn, a PhD From U of Illinois, and a Post-Grad degree from Columbia University.  Are you suggesting I do not know how to read? hahahaha

I suggest you get off your wingnut pony and educate yourself.

Edited September 22, 2022 by AURex

[AURex 2,262]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

The larger question is did you? 

The current Trump investigation is just the latest chapter of a long-brewing civil liberties nightmare

 

No, the investigation is the latest chapter in a long-brewing criminal investigation against the most MOB in America since Al Capone.

 

[AUFAN78 4,161]

13 hours ago, AURex said:

I have a BA from Auburn, a PhD From U of Illinois, and a Post-Grad degree from Columbia University.  Are you suggesting I do not know how to read? hahahaha

I suggest you get off your wingnut pony and educate yourself.

Congrats! I can only go on the evidence presented, as in your comments. 

Uh, I am not the one that misinterpreted the article. 

[TitanTiger 21,341]

22 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

The story isn't about Trump, but rather a dangerous federal law enforcement bureaucracy. But Trump lol. 

Actually, the story appears to be using a lot of build up from previous DOJ cases to make a point about the current Trump case.  That's what the entire article builds up to.

[AUDub 11,974]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually, the story appears to be using a lot of build up from previous DOJ cases to make a point about the current Trump case.  That's what the entire article builds up to.

Exactly.

[AUFAN78 4,161]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually, the story appears to be using a lot of build up from previous DOJ cases to make a point about the current Trump case.  That's what the entire article builds up to.

Trump is used in the article as the latest example of a far bigger problem. 

The Trump case is almost incidental to this wider story of extralegal short-cuts, intimidation, improper searches, and especially, a constant, intensifying effort at discrediting the adversarial system in favor of an executive-branch-only vision of the law, in which your right to stand before a judge or jury would be replaced by secret bureaucratic decisions. “Trump has become the way they sell this,” says one defense attorney. “But it’s not about Trump. If you focus on Trump, you’ll miss how serious this is. And it started a long time ago.” When? “Go back to 9/11,” he says. “You’ll see.”

Edited September 22, 2022 by AUFAN78

[AU9377 6,057]

It always amazes me that the far right empowers an unchecked law enforcement power at all levels, then complains when it touches their lives.  You want sentences to be longer, probable cause warrants easier to get, and people punished to teach them a lesson... UNTIL it is your close friend or family member that gets caught.

You hate shady lawyers stretching the truth and you detest the idea that someone gets special treatment, until it is your son or best friend.  Then you want the nastiest SOB you can find.

Edited September 23, 2022 by AU9377