re: BREAKING: Biden DOJ To Indict Trump Over Mar-a-lago Investigation

I hate the Ottotard klan as much as anyone.

I don’t hate trump.

I just don’t have the opinion that he can win.

Please do not post in all caps

This is the Jjbot that we all know and love.

Posting bullshite links from bullshitters.

quote:

---

roadGator
Will you and Jjbot visit Trump in jail?

---

Keep your 12 year old sophomoric crap out of this thread. Go start your own thread & jack each other off in a RonBot thread as ya'll pretend you aren't neocons & democrats.

Get The Bug to start a thread adorning Ron; and you can school each other on blowing NeoConRon w/ PollyTigerOnTheMountain after he drinks some more tonight.

pettifogger reply in this thread

quote:

---

They need Trump as a martyr and it's really all he has right now, there's nothing else he offers to energize the base.

---

And take pettifogger that thinks this is all meaningless and some conspiracy martyr trick, with you.

Without the rule of law and the immediate cease and desist of political attacks from the DOJ/FBI Ron is meaningless and could be subjected to the same political persecution.

We all could be.

quote:

---

Nonetheless, I will be voting for whomever the Republican nominee is.

---

I’ll cross my fingers and do the same.

quote:

---

Go start your own thread & jack each other off in a RonBot thread as ya'll pretend you aren't neocons & democrats.

---

CCL melts are just ok.

I think I’ll stay though. Thanks.

quote:

---

I don’t think DOJ would indict a former office holder for classified information that was just accidentally packed in with other materials upon leaving office, especially if they are cooperative in returning the documents once discovered. I’d think there would have to be additional factual circumstances to justify an indictment.

---

Barack Obama possessed classified information offsite for far longer than Donald Trump and returned it after Trump did. This is in clear violation of federal law.

You stated that the DOJ shouldn’t play favorites.

Do you support indicting Barack Obama for violation of the same statutes Trump is accused of violating?

quote:

---

The all too familiar David Laufman says it out loud, but few will pay attention. “That’s what this is. It- just because [the DOJ-NSD justification for the raid on Trump] implicates classified information to me, doesn’t seem to give a platform for the House Intelligence Committee to intrude at this time,” Laufman says.

In the aftermath of 9-11 the U.S. government created the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct surveillance of “domestic threats,” the American people. When Barack Obama and Eric Holder stepped in a few years later, they created the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD). This division specializes in weaponizing surveillance against their political enemies. The DOJ-NSD had no inspector general oversight and operates within Main Justice, but above the law. Essentially, they use the justification of ‘national security‘ to defend the Fourth Branch of Government, the permanent surveillance state.

---

Our Constitution was written with a unitary executive to prevent this abusive structure from persisting if it ever took root. Scalia was right about the unitary executive, laid out in his most famous dissent, and SCOTUS was wrong.

A President in the future must take seriously the role of a unitary executive and call the bluff of the SCOTUS and Congress. That President must abolish entities like the NSD, the Senior Executive Service and similar entities.

How do you know Scalia was right? Well, a good indicator is that places like Vox launched hit pieces on his famous dissent that discussed the unitary executive, as well as the insurgent class at lawfareblog.

Here are some excerpts from Scalia's dissent:
The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government...

Federalist No. 73, p. 442 (A. Hamilton). "[T]he great security," wrote Madison, "against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack." Federalist No. 51, pp. 321-322. Madison continued:

"But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. . . . As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified." Id., at 322-323...

The major "fortification" provided, of course, was the veto power. But in addition to providing fortification, the Founders conspicuously and very consciously declined to sap the Executive's strength in the same way they had weakened [487 U.S. 654, 699] the Legislature: by dividing the executive power. Proposals to have multiple executives, or a council of advisers with separate authority were rejected...

..."[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States," Art. II, 1, cl. 1 (emphasis added).

That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish - so that "a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department," Federalist No. 51, p. 321 (J. Madison), can effectively be resisted. Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf....

We must have a President willing to fulfill the manifest tenor of the Constitution and be the unitary executive, insuring the functions of government, expressed in the Preamble, are carried out - it is only when the unitary executive departs from the manifest tenor of the Constitution that the other branches are permitted to intervene.

quote:

---

I know you've said before they bulletproofed the IC from oversight, but there is no way I would have been able to go back and find that.

---

tCTH is who pointed this out a long time ago. Yet we all just go on and bitch they are above the law and forget they legally are.

quote:

---

The DOJ-NSD had no inspector general oversight and operates within Main Justice, but above the law. Essentially, they use the justification of ‘national security‘ to defend the Fourth Branch of Government, the permanent surveillance state.

---

So what are the solutions? And yes, Obama did this but Bush helped with his classification of the FBI as an intel agency because of 911.

Seriously we are sitting ducks. What can be done? Can Congress critters cut off the DOJNSD's funding?