Trump says on Univision that if he wins, he is allowed to weaponize FBI, DOJ against his political enemies

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,295
36,611
Los Angeles Area
✟830,378.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
This is hardly news at this point, but...

During a sit-down interview with the Spanish television giant, the former president says he could weaponize DOJ and also defended migrant family separations at the border

During the interview on the Spanish-language TV network, journalist Enrique Acevedo asked Trump if he would weaponize the FBI and Justice Department on his opponents in the same way he claims federal law enforcement agencies have been weaponized against him.

“Yeah. If they do this, and they’ve already done it, but if they follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse,” Trump told Acevedo, according to excerpts of the interview.

“They have done something that allows the next party

[Let me stop him there for a moment. Even if we grant his claim (and that of Jim Jordan's weaponization subcommittee) that the DOJ has been unlawfully/unconstitutionally directed against him for political reasons -- that does not 'allow' everybody else to do it.]

… if I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business. They’d be out of the election,” Trump continued.

In private, the former president has told advisers and friends in recent months that he wants the Justice Department to investigate former Trump officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, according to people who have talked to him and spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

In public, Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” Biden and his family.

To facilitate Trump’s ability to direct Justice Department actions, his associates have drafted plans to dispense with 50 years of policy and practice intended to shield criminal prosecutions from political considerations. Critics have called such ideas dangerous and unconstitutional.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: wing2000

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,319
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,368.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
This is hardly news at this point, but...

During a sit-down interview with the Spanish television giant, the former president says he could weaponize DOJ and also defended migrant family separations at the border

During the interview on the Spanish-language TV network, journalist Enrique Acevedo asked Trump if he would weaponize the FBI and Justice Department on his opponents in the same way he claims federal law enforcement agencies have been weaponized against him.

“Yeah. If they do this, and they’ve already done it, but if they follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse,” Trump told Acevedo, according to excerpts of the interview.

“They have done something that allows the next party

[Let me stop him there for a moment. Even if we grant his claim (and that of Jim Jordan's weaponization subcommittee) that the DOJ has been unlawfully/unconstitutionally directed against him for political reasons -- that does not 'allow' everybody else to do it.]
You are exactly right. It does not allow 'everybody' to do it. You have to be a Democrat for it to be allowed.

The hopeful thing is that Trump said 'could' and not 'would'. I hope that is a distinction that is actually a difference. Maybe not. Maybe tit for tat is going to be a permanent feature of our new banana republic.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,823
13,407
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟368,220.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Countless stacks of evidence and eyewitness testimony isn't weaponizing butkiss.

I refuse to humor this loser's dillusions even if 30% of America is lost to this false prophet
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,823
13,407
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟368,220.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
You are exactly right. It does not allow 'everybody' to do it. You have to be a Democrat for it to be allowed.

The hopeful thing is that Trump said 'could' and not 'would'. I hope that is a distinction that is actually a difference. Maybe not. Maybe tit for tat is going to be a permanent feature of our new banana republic.
You think Biden investigations are meaningful?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,319
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,368.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
You think Biden investigations are meaningful?
You think they aren't? I think I should wait and see what they actually find.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,919
17,317
✟1,429,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Countless stacks of evidence and eyewitness testimony isn't weaponizing butkiss.

I refuse to humor this loser's dillusions even if 30% of America is lost to this false prophet

Oh, but "weaponizing" the Justice department sound so ominous!

I recall when "weapnizing" as a term reserved for describing military capabilities....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Dec 3, 2006
2,402
889
59
Saint James, Missouri
✟66,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,319
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,368.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
There was indeed a peaceful transfer of power on January 20th, 2021.
Funny ... yes, I remember that. Trump left and Biden was sworn in as president. Nobody had to handcuff anyone that day.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,319
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,368.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
In spite of his refusal, yes.
Um, Trump left the White House under his own power, which means he did not 'refuse'. Had he refused he would have had to have been carried out of the White House. He didn't like the election results. But he went ahead and left on the 20th.

We've been a banana republic for some time now. Trump is just one iteration of the slipping on the banana. We have another iteration now. We had one or two before Trump. I don't think we stop being a banana republic any time soon. It's not just Trump.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,940
3,623
NW
✟195,067.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Funny ... yes, I remember that. Trump left and Biden was sworn in as president. Nobody had to handcuff anyone that day.
Fortunately, the failed coup was over by then. Plenty of handcuffs followed, though.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,924
5,005
69
Midwest
✟283,519.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But he went ahead and left on the 20th.
Only because his little army of insurrectionists failed. But not before there was plenty of unprecedented violence at the Capital on the 6th.

Where else have you seen that in our nations history?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,319
16,156
Flyoverland
✟1,238,368.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Only because his little army of insurrectionists failed. But not before there was plenty of unprecedented violence at the Capital on the 6th.

Where else have you seen that in our nations history?
That's not even hard to answer. In 1954 some Puerto Rican separatists shot and injured five Congressmen in the House chambers. That was rather famous even. Two capitol police were shot and killed in 1998. There were bombings in 1915, 1971, and 1983. And before the Civil War many slave-holding Congressmen resorted to physical violence against abolitionist Congressmen including a thirty person fist fight. The 'unprecedented' violence at the Capitol on January 6th had lots of precedents in the history of that building. You may think January 6th should be a day that goes down in infamy, but there are unruly protests frequently in the Capitol building resulting in massive arrests, including one recently concerning the Hamas-Israel war.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0