Today in hypocrisy...

[nsplayr]

32 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think you'd have to be high to think the FBI would raid a former president's house without the approval of the current president.

If true, Biden should shit-can the entire chain of command. He's supposed to be their boss, when he isn't mumbling into his oatmeal, and this would be a phenomenal decision to make without him.

You do not understand how the justice department is supposed to work. The fact that the AG personally signed off means this went much higher up the chain than normal and for all intents and purposes that’s as high as this type of chain goes.

It’s kind of like the IG…technically works for the Commander, but also has some independence and doesn’t clear all work ahead of time with the CC, especially in sensitive cases or when the boss might have conflicts.

Edited August 19, 2022 by nsplayr

[Sua Sponte]

26 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think you'd have to be high to think the FBI would raid a former president's house without the approval of the current president.

 

If true, Biden should shit-can the entire chain of command. He's supposed to be their boss, when he isn't mumbling into his oatmeal, and this would be a phenomenal decision to make without him.

Conjecture. The DOJ wants to possibly prosecute, they're going to take the most risk adverse path. It would be devastating to their case if they got approval of the sitting rival president's approval, which would be completely inappropriate to do so. Do I think that the AG reviewed the PC before they went to a magistrate to get a warrant? 1000%. Trump blurred the line with trying to influence members of the DOJ to do what he wanted. This is the basis on why he fired Preet Bharara as the SDNY USA, Preet refused to do what he wanted as a USA.

[Sua Sponte]

9 minutes ago, arg said:

I don’t believe they didn’t tell Biden. I do believe however that he didn’t know.

Biden probably knew about the communication between Trump's lawyers and the National Archives, but like you said I don't believe the DOJ/FBI briefed Biden on the criminal investigation/warrant beforehand. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Sua Sponte

[nsplayr]

2 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Trump blurred the line with trying to influence members of the DOJ to do what he wanted. This is the basis on why he fired Preet Bharara as the SDNY USA, Preet refused to do what he wanted as a USA.

In addition to Preet, you can add Sessions, Comey, and BJ Pak in Georgia…

[dream big]

13 hours ago, nsplayr said:

What you’re advocating for here is the end of the rule of law. Perhaps you believe we’re already there but I do not. Even if you do believe the FBI is lawless, the right solution isn’t to use it for your own political gain as soon as you are able, it’s to bring it back to heel and within the bounds of the rule of law. Eye-for-an-eye justice is not the American way.

I think we should continue to support and defend the constitution and improve or shore up any government functions that aren’t running optimally rather than wholesale throwing out our institutions and sliding into partisan authoritarianism.

I guess you can make another choice but I mean…🤷‍♂️

How about we not give up on America and fulfill the oaths I’m pretty sure nearly all of us swore? 🇺🇸

Look dude, if Trump is deemed by an impartial court as having broken the law, then he should suffer the consequences. Let’s not pretend that the impartiality part is even remotely possible. What little faith in our justice system will go to shreds if Trump is sent to prison let alone convicted.

I’ll tell you this though, if the above happens, there will be a political backlash like none other we have ever seen.  He still has a very loyal base; they will see this as a political attack and martyrdom, especially after Hilary has gone scott free and still runs off her mouth.  I’ve never seen our country more polarized but I think this might make the cut. The rest of us are simply acknowledging the second and third order effects.  Also, legal precedent might be a factor here?

[TreeA10]

5 hours ago, nsplayr said:

This is extremely normal and how it’s supposed to work.

The Attorney General Merrick Garland personally approved of the warrant being served…he even had a brief press conference about it. But he did not, nor should he have, pre-briefed President Biden.

There is supposed to be some autonomy and political distance between the President and certain justice officials, like the director of the FBI and the AG, even though both are part of the executive branch and derive their powers and duties from the President’s constitutional charge to faithfully execute the laws.

Different Presidents handle it differently and not always consistently. Bill Clinton, GWB and Obama I don’t think were ever really inappropriately close to their AGs, give or take. Trump was furious that Jeff Sessions and then Bill Barr weren’t basically his personal lawyers and enforcers and both eventually resigned because of it…so like I said…they handled it differently 😅

Normal? In 200+ years of existence, no president current or former, past or present has had their home raided by law enforcement. Normal would not enter the conversation. Unprecedented would be a better choice.

The regime had better find a check from the Russians written directly to Trump for nuke secrets, stealth technology, the location of Jimmy Hoffa, the recipe for Coke (original not New Coke), and Scarlett Johansson s phone number. Any failing to dot an i or cross a t bullshit isn't going to cut it but I think that's what the FBI has done.  

[HeloDude]

Just a couple months ago progressives weren’t so supportive of the “rule of law” when SCOTUS overturned Roe and told states that citizens can can carry firearms outside of their homes.  
 

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

You do not understand how the justice department is supposed to work. The fact that the AG personally signed off means this went much higher up the chain than normal and for all intents and purposes that’s as high as this type of chain goes.

It’s kind of like the IG…technically works for the Commander, but also has some independence and doesn’t clear all work ahead of time with the CC, especially in sensitive cases or when the boss might have conflicts.

Where is that written, exactly? The constitution? Who does the justice department fall under? Is it like the Federal Reserve?

 

There's nothing normal about raiding an ex-president's home, who very well may be a president-elect again. If you're right and these idiots thought such a decision should be made "independently," we're in bigger trouble than I fear. 

 

You can't possibly be this obtuse.

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Trump blurred the line with trying to influence members of the DOJ to do what he wanted.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128392138

 

I think it's great that so many liberal-minded people are suddenly engaged in national level politics and paying attention, but that doesn't mean everything that happened before you were paying attention is ancient history.

[Sim]

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

You do not understand how the justice department is supposed to work.

Like this? 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/fbi-agent-pleads-guilty-destroying-evidence-frame-pro-trump-political-prisoner/?utm_source=Gab&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

 

Quote

FBI Agent Pleads Guilty to Destroying Evidence to Frame Pro-Trump Political Prisoner

Quote

“In a plea deal filed Wednesday, a former FBI agent pleaded guilty to paying a business to “wipe” his computer to make the hard drive unavailable for forensic examination.

 

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128392138

 

I think it's great that so many liberal-minded people are suddenly engaged in national level politics and paying attention, but that doesn't mean everything that happened before you were paying attention is ancient history.

That’s a far cry from this.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/539109386/jeff-sessions-out-as-attorney-general-after-steady-drumbeat-of-criticism-from-tr

[Lord Ratner]

24 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

That’s a far cry from this.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/539109386/jeff-sessions-out-as-attorney-general-after-steady-drumbeat-of-criticism-from-tr

Not really. The difference between Trump and everyone else (R and D) is that he wanted his minions to publicly declare fealty to him. One of his many character flaws.

 

If you think there has been independence between the president and his cabinet, I have a bridge to sell you in Manhattan.

[nsplayr]

There is absolutely supposed to be independence between the AG and the President, not unlike between the IG and the CC. Does it always happen in practice? No. Do some folks toe the line? Yes. Is it written in the constitution somewhere exactly what the boundaries are? No.

That doesn’t mean that the norms and best practices don’t exist, nor does ignorance of them mean they don’t exist.

I for one don’t want any President directing politically sensitive investigations. That’s how dictatorships work…the leader is in charge of everything and the interior ministry is the steel-toed boot of the state on behalf of the dictator’s whims.

Thats now how our system works, nowhere close, nor should any of us want that.

Edited August 19, 2022 by nsplayr

[Swizzle]

8 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

...and Scarlett Johansson s phone number.  

Is that TS/SCI?....asking for a friend...(/s)

[BrightNeptune]

19 hours ago, Best-22 said:

This point of view is completely incompatible with military service. Did you forget what forum you're on? 

 

Yikes 

 

19 hours ago, nsplayr said:

This is quite the point of view, especially if you are a currently-serving officer! Good luck to you.

Care to make an argument instead of clutching pearls?

Please tell me how your service, or mine, has defended the constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. 

Please tell me how we have more freedoms now than when when we joined the military.

While you're at it, make a case for all of the service members that were killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hellholes in the last 25 years. How did they die for the constitution? How are the millions of dead civilians in line with the constitution? How is going to war without declaring war in line with the constitution?

 

[TreeA10]

Everything old is new again.  The obsession continues as some familiar names are back for another round of chucking harpoons at the Great Orange Whale.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/08/18/fbi_unit_leading_mar-a-lago_probe_previously_led_russiagate_hoax_848582.html

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, BrightNeptune said:

Care to make an argument instead of clutching pearls?

If you truly believe, like you said, that the oath you swore means nothing, the constitution is worthless because it’s not followed, and all of our various military operations are pointless, then I urge you to either not join, not re-enlist, or resign your commission ASAP, depending on who you are at this point career-wise.

No additional debate is needed - your views as you’ve described them are not compatible with uniformed service. Good luck to you in your other endeavors.

I’m all for being introspective and acknowledging how we as a nation have made (and continue to make) mistakes and how we can do better, but that’s not what you’re saying.

[Best-22]

3 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

If you truly believe, like you said, that the oath you swore means nothing, the constitution is worthless because it’s not followed, and all of our various military operations are pointless, then I urge you to either not join, not re-enlist, or resign your commission ASAP, depending on who you are at this point career-wise.

No additional debate is needed - your views as you’ve described them are not compatible with uniformed service. Good luck to you in your other endeavors.

I’m all for being introspective and acknowledging how we as a nation have made (and continue to make) mistakes and how we can do better, but that’s not what you’re saying.

Seconded.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

There is absolutely supposed to be independence between the AG and the President, not unlike between the IG and the CC. Does it always happen in practice? No. Do some folks toe the line? Yes. Is it written in the constitution somewhere exactly what the boundaries are? No.

That doesn’t mean that the norms and best practices don’t exist, nor does ignorance of them mean they don’t exist.

I for one don’t want any President directing politically sensitive investigations. That’s how dictatorships work…the leader is in charge of everything and the interior ministry is the steel-toed boot of the state on behalf of the dictator’s whims.

Thats now how our system works, nowhere close, nor should any of us want that.

Supposed to where? Is it in the federalist papers? Are any of the founders known to have elucidated such a barrier? Is there a law that has been passed declaring such. Or is this just your opinion? 

Law enforcement falls under the executive branch, which has only one elected official. Two of you count the VP, but no one does. It is specifically the president's job to oversee these bureaucracies.

 

What you are advocating for is an uncontrolled regulatory state, which is sorta what we have right now and it sucks. For the people, by the people.

 

If the president isn't directly engaged in the management of the FBI and all of it's functions, then we the people have no recourse to change the FBI when it, let's say hypothetically, launches an investigation knowingly based off opposition campaign research, eventually lying to the FISA court in order to obtain warrants to surveil Americans who are participants in the nation's most important political process.

Your perspective on this particular issue is perfectly demonstrative of the failing of liberal thought. The system should work this way. Best practices. I don't want. It shouldn't be. Ideals.

 

An idealist would create an independent FBI and think that it will act in accordance with everybody's fair-minded values, even though there is no agreement on what is fair-minded. Conversely, our entire system was designed explicitly acknowledging that idealist independent systems will always devolve to tyranny, and instead used checks and balances amongst the competing branches of government in order to rein in the inevitable corruption and political posturing that would follow.

 

An independent FBI is precisely what Americans should fear, and the history of the organization is so laughably demonstrative of this that I'm surprised you, usually historically aware, would think otherwise.

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Words...

The entire executive branch is accountable to the President, who is accountable to Congress, term limits and the American voters, but he does not control the entire executive branch. Nor should he! Nor can he!

I've tried to EILI5 w/ comparisons to the Air Force but maybe that's not working. Does the IG run every investigation by the CC first? Do you think they should? I mean, the CC is ultimately responsible, right? Why shouldn't they personally direct and shape the outcome of every IG investigation into anyone within his/her scope of command? Every security forces action on base? Every OSI investigation on base? Hell maybe the CC should jump up on the flight deck and personally land the plane on every sortie! The answers here seem self-evident to me.

On top of the analogy to a bureaucracy we're all more used to, there were specific rules put into place after Watergate designed to limit the President's direct personal involvement in DOJ affairs, for reasons you can imagine if you're familiar with what happened in Watergate.

I'm not a DOJ/constitutional law expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and found this article by Jack Goldsmith, who most certainly is. And he's also a conservative Republican FWIW so this isn't some kind of anti-GOP partisan opinion.

Perhaps you're a big believer in the "unitary executive theory" and therefore basically a President can do whatever he wants so long as he isn't voted out, term-limited, or impeached by Congress. I don't subscribe to that theory, and neither does Goldsmith. The DOJ and in turn the FBI can both be independent and accountable, are so at present, and have been pretty explicitly so under both Democrats and Republicans since Nixon resigned.

Hell, even President Trump's administration (if not the man himself...) believed it was proper to limit communications between the White House and DOJ. You can read the WH Counsel Don McGahn's memo on the subject here. Trump didn't follow or care about those rules, but that's another story. Here is the Biden Admin's memo, written by AG Garland, about communications with the White House that's largely the same as McGahn's memo linked above.

This isn't some made up bullshit by some guy online, there are actual policy memos from both of the last two administrations laying out how they will operate; independently but with accountability. Maybe if these guidelines were in the Federalist Papers, which were written as (effective!) propaganda to "sell" the need for the Constitution 234 years ago, you'd think that they were ok 🤷‍♂️

Let's flip the current situation on it's head. The FBI intents to raid Hunter Biden's home seeking evidence of crimes after obtaining a warrant. Being politically sensitive, though not required, they seek and gain the approval to proceed from AG Garland.

Would you like Garland to brief President Biden ahead of time about the raid? Should President Biden be able to stop the raid if he wishes? I mean, the President is head of the executive branch, elected by the voters, "...clothed in immense power," why shouldn't he be able to stop this "unwarranted harassment of his innocent son by unelected bureaucrats, ones who work for him in the first place!?!?"

My emphatic answers to the above hypotheticals are not only no but hell no, and I bet yours are too.

Edited August 20, 2022 by nsplayr

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

I've tried to EILI5 w/ comparisons to the Air Force but maybe that's not working. Does the IG run every investigation by the CC first?

This is a great comparison. 

No. 

But you can bet your ass if the IG is going to kick in the door of a MAJCOM CC, he isn't doing so without first checking in with the CSAF.

 

And you're delusional if you think otherwise, but I'm beginning to think you just might be.

 

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Would you like Garland to brief President Biden ahead of time about the raid?

You are the king of misrepresentation. You don't think maybe there might be a conflict of interest in your scenario? Or are you implying that telling Biden about the Trump raid might tip off Trump during his weekly gossip session with Joe? Ridiculous.

 

You are fabricating examples using completely ridiculous comparisons. These are not some routine procedures that don't require the king to sign off, this was raiding an ex-president and likely current candidate for the presidency. If you don't think that needs top of the chain sign off, it becomes hard to believe you were ever in the same military I was in. In fact, your comparison just keeps falling apart, since any major military operation gets sign off from the top. For example, bin laden and Soleimani. Or should Obama and Trump have maintained plausible deniability in those operations? The president is in charge of more than just the military. 

 

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

why shouldn't he be able to stop this "unwarranted harassment of his innocent son by unelected bureaucrats, ones who work for him in the first place!?!?"

He can, as many before him have. He will pay at the polls. But the alternative to presidential nepotism is far worse. Besides, from the event you described is likely the legislature that takes over investigative responsibilities, as I suspect they will if Republicans take the house in November. 

 

Again, unlike the fantasy world you describe, this is not hypothetical fear mongering. The FBI was literally an unaccountable organization run by a power mad lunatic who used his position of power to extort and likely frame people who he disagreed with.

 

Unelected officials should never have real power. When they do, our system does not operate as intended. This is why the supreme Court does not have the power to make laws, only judge them. And they can't even judge a law without someone else bringing it to them. These are pretty basic concepts and foundational to our government. It is surprising to see you struggle with them so much.

 

[nsplayr]

45 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You are the king of misrepresentation. You don't think maybe there might be a conflict of interest in your scenario? Or are you implying that telling Biden about the Trump raid might tip off Trump during his weekly gossip session with Joe? Ridiculous.

I mean I think there might be a conflict of interest either way, which is why the FBI & DOJ definitely should not personally involve the President or anyone at the White House in their investigations. What if the case was iffy, and the DOJ was inclined to not pursue the case against Trump. But Garland takes the issue to Biden and Biden says, "FUCK YEA investigate Trump! I order you to pursue this warrant, and if you can get him in cuffs on camera even better!" Trump is not only a former political opponent but is also a likely future political opponent for Biden, and there absolutely is a conflict of interest there if Biden is hands-on directing an investigation against him. I would not support that - I'm interested to hear if you would, with the remedy being that Biden could be voted out in 2 years time. That seems like a long time for some authoritarian BS to just be locked-in because of prior election.

45 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you don't think that needs top of the chain sign off, it becomes hard to believe you were ever in the same military I was in. In fact, your comparison just keeps falling apart, since any major military operation gets sign off from the top. For example, bin laden and Soleimani. Or should Obama and Trump have maintained plausible deniability in those operations? The president is in charge of more than just the military.

In this case, the top of the food chain is the AG, who signed off. There are pre-briefed ROEs that no one from the WH will be involved in DOJ investigations. Per above, it would be a scandal precisely if Biden did get personally involved and either approved of or waived off an investigation. Play by your ROEs at all times, even if your organization has violated them in the past.

Military operations are completely different, as the pre-brief ROE is that the CINC has final say unless delegated, and in fact the targeting process for all high-level or sensitive targets will explicitly state the level of strike approval authority, from say TF Commander up through POTUS himself as required. Again, play by your ROEs.

45 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The FBI was literally an unaccountable organization run by a power mad lunatic who used his position of power to extort and likely frame people who he disagreed with.

I'm not sure exactly who you are talking about (Comey? Wray? Biden? Trump? Barr? Garland?), but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree overall. Comey was fired, McCabe was shown an early retirement, there were congressional investigations, a different President was elected at the next cycle and control of the Senate also changed hands. Seems like the system of accountability you're looking for is working.

45 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Unelected officials should never have real power. When they do, our system does not operate as intended.

I am an unelected government official, and yet with the approval of the JTAC (via the CC with appropriate delegated authority) I can squeeze a trigger and kill people. That's pretty powerful if you ask me. And based on existing law and ROE, the system is operating exactly as intended.

The same types of laws, policy memos and chains of command that govern my drone strike exist for DOJ/FBI investigations, even if you're not super familiar with them. Just because you disagree with the results of a particular FBI investigation (as you may disagree with the results of my drone strike), that doesn't mean the system isn't doing exactly what it was intended to do by the exact rules of accountability and authority baked into ahead of time, which can of course be updated as time goes on and/or new administrations or operational-level leaders take over.

That doesn't mean crews have never shot without clearance, it doesn't mean the FBI has never lied to a judge to get a warrant (or wiretapped MLK Jr. 😬), but at least to me, our current form of government isn't some kind of radically out-of-check maniacal force that should be corrected via dictatorship.

Edited August 20, 2022 by nsplayr

[uhhello]

The guy you're looking for is Hoover.....

[TreeA10]

Another reason to have suspicion or doubt in the esteemed FBI. I read Atkinnsons book a few years ago and at that time, she was sure it was a three letter agency that hacked her computer/devices but didn't say which one. Looks like the FBI is the culprit. Her comment about an agent admitting to putting child porn on a computer to go after someone is something I had not heard. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/08/sharyl_attkisson_reveals_how_low_the_fbi_will_go.html

 

[Sim]

More reasons to completely and unilaterally trust them. 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/19/think-the-fbi-deserves-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-this-laundry-list-of-corruption-should-make-you-think-again/