• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the DOJ be an arm of the president?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump sounds like he wants to turn the DOJ into an arm of the president and the president's political party. Do you think that the DOJ should be an arm of the president and his party? DO you think it is wrong for this or any president to try and push the DOJ into doing their bidding?
 
Ah, yes...er, no...

Whatever Obama did with the DOJ is a fine example for all presidents.
 
humbolt said:
Ah, yes...er, no...

Whatever Obama did with the DOJ is a fine example for all presidents.
Click to expand...

I agree with humbolt. Obama's tradition of keeping a barrier between himself and the Justice Department is what separates a democracy from a dictatorship. A democracy can't exist in an environment in which the head of state is allowed to use the government to prosecute his political enemies.
 
independentusa said:
Trump sounds like he wants to turn the DOJ into an arm of the president and the president's political party. Do you think that the DOJ should be an arm of the president and his party? DO you think it is wrong for this or any president to try and push the DOJ into doing their bidding?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm . . .

eric-holder.jpg


loretta_lynch.jpg
 
Maybe after the investigation of uranium one gets going good we will see how Obable handled the DOJ, he did use the IRS to punish his enemies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
I agree with humbolt. Obama's tradition of keeping a barrier between himself and the Justice Department is what separates a democracy from a dictatorship. A democracy can't exist in an environment in which the head of state is allowed to use the government to prosecute his political enemies.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment. I was being sarcastic about Obama, however. I think the DOJ suffers somewhat in being a part of the executive branch. Yes, that's an intentional constitutional placement of authority, but it's clear that such a placement is abused to some extent by nearly every president. I'm certain that Trump will push his influence as far as he can as well. So if anybody was fine with Obama, Bush, or whomever one likes as president in the past, given Trump's actions to date, one should be fine with Trump as well.
 
humbolt said:
I agree with your sentiment. I was being sarcastic about Obama, however. I think the DOJ suffers somewhat in being a part of the executive branch. Yes, that's an intentional constitutional placement of authority, but it's clear that such a placement is abused to some extent by nearly every president. I'm certain that Trump will push his influence as far as he can as well. So if anybody was fine with Obama, Bush, or whomever one likes as president in the past, given Trump's actions to date, one should be fine with Trump as well.
Click to expand...

Please detail your objections with Obama with regards to his use of the Justice Department to interfere in investigations into himself and as a tool against his political enemies. Trump has repeatedly gone on record trying to use the Justice Department to investigate Clinton and Mueller. Please find the equivalent for Obama.
 
Cardinal said:
Please detail your objections with Obama with regards to his use of the Justice Department to interfere in investigations into himself and as a tool against his political enemies. Trump has repeatedly gone on record trying to use the Justice Department to investigate Clinton and Mueller. Please find the equivalent for Obama.
Click to expand...

(*cough*) Operation Choke Point (*cough*)

(*cough*) James Rosen of Fox News (*cough*)
 
Cardinal said:
Please detail your objections with Obama with regards to his use of the Justice Department to interfere in investigations into himself and as a tool against his political enemies. Trump has repeatedly gone on record trying to use the Justice Department to investigate Clinton and Mueller. Please find the equivalent for Obama.
Click to expand...

I leave to the LA Times to discuss Obama and other presidents in recent memory.

LA Times

That's by no means comprehensive, but it's a taste of presidents meddling where they probably shouldn't.
 
humbolt said:
I leave to the LA Times to discuss Obama and other presidents in recent memory.

LA Times

That's by no means comprehensive, but it's a taste of presidents meddling where they probably shouldn't.
Click to expand...

No lazy linking, please. Explain in your own words how Obama has used the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. (Bonus points if he wished there was no barrier at all between himself and the Justice Department as Trump did).
 
Cardinal said:
No lazy linking, please. Explain in your own words how Obama has used the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. (Bonus points if he wished there was no barrier at all between himself and the Justice Department as Trump did).
Click to expand...

It wasn't lazy. My fingers were sweating to the bone. To the bone.
 
humbolt said:
It wasn't lazy. My fingers were sweating to the bone. To the bone.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Your attempt at a false equivalency is rejected.
 
Cardinal said:
Uh huh. Your attempt at a false equivalency is rejected.
Click to expand...

Oh, all right. I admit it. I was wearing gloves. Sweat gloves. I have fat fingers, and I can't play the harp anymore as a result.
 
humbolt said:
Oh, all right. I admit it. I was wearing gloves. Sweat gloves. I have fat fingers, and I can't play the harp anymore as a result.
Click to expand...

Some friendly advice: when you make a claim like you did in post #6, expect that people are going to confront you on it, so in the future be sure to have an argument with supporting evidence prepared.
 
independentusa said:
Trump sounds like he wants to turn the DOJ into an arm of the president and the president's political party. Do you think that the DOJ should be an arm of the president and his party? DO you think it is wrong for this or any president to try and push the DOJ into doing their bidding?
Click to expand...

It's the way the Constitution was written to prevent constant legal coup attempts constantly on the front burner, preventing anything serving the people to get done. Yes. Serving the people is the job they are elected to do, not try to "crime" their competition out of office. The AG's office would turn into congresses personal Special Prosecutor, and nothing would get done but one witch hunt after another.

The founders understood the nature of man. The losing party just has to accept the loss of power and do a better job and get voted back in on their merits.
 
Cardinal said:
Some friendly advice: when you make a claim like you did in post #6, expect that people are going to confront you on it, so in the future be sure to have an argument with supporting evidence prepared.
Click to expand...

Evidence abounds. You just don't like it. I noticed you had no objection to the evidence that other presidents prior to Obama have engaged in similar behavior. These things are well known, Cardinal. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. They're still there. If justice is truly blind, then Hillary would be facing charges for gross negligence.
 
humbolt said:
Evidence abounds. You just don't like it. I noticed you had no objection to the evidence that other presidents prior to Obama have engaged in similar behavior.
Click to expand...

Well, there was certainly the well known Nixon example, and I don't recall that ending well. Glad to see you've abandoned the Obama example altogether.

humbolt said:
These things are well known, Cardinal. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. They're still there. If justice is truly blind, then Hillary would be facing charges for gross negligence.
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
Well, there was certainly the well known Nixon example, and I don't recall that ending well. Glad to see you've abandoned the Obama example altogether.
Click to expand...

Well, outside of the fact that it was the Obama DOJ that let Hillary walk on what would obviously have landed others in jail...Pointing that out is hardly abandoning Obama's culpability.
 
humbolt said:
Well, outside of the fact that it was the Obama DOJ that let Hillary walk on what would obviously have landed others in jail...Pointing that out is hardly abandoning Obama's culpability.
Click to expand...

You're good at making claims, but apparently have no skill at backing any of them up.
 
Cardinal said:
You're good at making claims, but apparently have no skill at backing any of them up.
Click to expand...

The Hillary claim wasn't of my making, and if that claim requires backup, you must have slept through the past few years. Now I know you haven't, so I can only conclude that examples of leftist presidents abusing their influence with the DOJ don't count, but that similar examples of right-leaning presidents do. So much for your endorsement of blind justice. It's starting to ring a little hollow.
 
humbolt said:
The Hillary claim wasn't of my making, and if that claim requires backup, you must have slept through the past few years. Now I know you haven't, so I can only conclude that examples of leftist presidents abusing their influence with the DOJ don't count, but that similar examples of right-leaning presidents do. So much for your endorsement of blind justice. It's starting to ring a little hollow.
Click to expand...

Not pictured above: an argument with cut-and-pasted supporting evidence from a relevant article, and a link to that article.
 
Cardinal said:
Not pictured above: an argument with cut-and-pasted supporting evidence from a relevant article, and a link to that article.
Click to expand...

You may select one from the gazillion on the internet anytime you like. If you just really, really don't want to, don't blame me. It's not my fault you're lazy. Now I have to go install stock tank heaters and play around in real mud. Have a good afternoon.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, there was certainly the well known Nixon example, and I don't recall that ending well. Glad to see you've abandoned the Obama example altogether.
Click to expand...

Operation Choke Point, wherein the DoJ put the screws to banks for dealing with certain perfectly legal operations that the Obama Admin found undesirable, like firearms/ammunition sales, pharmaceutical sales, home-based charities, pornography, "racist materials" (whatever that means), tobacco sales, and a slew of others? While at the same time federal regulators were encouraging banks to provide services to illegal marijuana sales?

This list was devised under the dubious rationale that these activities represented "reputation risks" to banks. So, the usual Obama bugaboos, though perfectly legal, = "reputation risks," but activity approved of by the administration but still illegal under federal law, somehow does not.

Then there's the DoJ funneling money from settlements of corporate prosecutions to left-wing causes.

There's the DoJ spying on James Rosen.

Then there's the DoJ lecturing Ferguson residents about "white privilege."

Never mind the Lynch/Clinton fiasco.

Doesn't exactly end there.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, there was certainly the well known Nixon example, and I don't recall that ending well. Glad to see you've abandoned the Obama example altogether.
Click to expand...

Here's more:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/13/13-31078-CR0.pdf

This Fifth Circuit case details extreme prosecutorial abuse by the Holder Justice Department against New Orleans cops in order to further a narrative of systemic racism in the NOLA PD.

Including members of the US Attorney's Office posting, anonymously, inflammatory accusations against the cops and the department while the trial was going on.

At least one member of Holder's Civil Rights commission participated in the anonymous smear campaign, to which she was subject only to "verbal discipline" and remained on the commission. She may have done it under several names, and there may have been other people in the DoJ involved, or at least knowledgeable of it: "Dobinski is disturbingly vague . . . about how many other people in her department were aware of her commenting and whether ‘Dipsos’ was her only moniker."

The court also found that the DoJ internal investigation into this matter was not only lackluster, it may have been geared to intentionally undermine informing the federal courts as to the extent of what all happened.

That's not all -- there was coercion of defendants into pleading guilty, and intimidation of defense witness intimidation leading them to refuse to testify.

A politicized DoJ, indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom