Posted on 03/15/2025 11:53:43 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
I did not see the speech at the DoJ, but I can imagine what President Trump said, as he's said it all before during his rallies.
Let me guess... the DoJ is corrupt, they spied on his campaign, they lied to the FISA courts, they went after parents at school board meetings while letting terrorists and murderors and arsonists and looters go free...
...they weaponized the IRS against conservative groups, they conspired with state courts to file phony charges against him, they raided his home and indicted him in federal court for documents they absolved Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden for having when they didn't have the authority to possess them and he did...
...yada yada yada...
Just today, a lowly district court judge ORDERED President Trump to order an airplane with Venezuelan deportees to return to the United States! Where does a district court judge get THAT authority?!?
So forgive me if I don't take Politico's cue for outrage seriously.
Politico: "bellicose speech... he delivered an insult-laden speech that shattered the traditional notion of DOJ independence."
Selective outrage makes me suspect the people who are complaining. The prior administration cheered that quote when it was their side saying it about Trump, but now they are calling it outrageous that President Trump DARE to say it about them FROM THE DOJ ITSELF like some conquering hero??!?
I think the "notion of DOJ independence" was "shattered" the day that Eric Holder declared himself to be Obama's "wingman." Politico saying this about President Trump is nothing more than selective outrage.
When the President says he's going to clean up the Department of Justice and return one tier of justice and one rule of law for all, and the response by department management is to lie to the Attorney General about possession of documents, to barracade one's self in his office and email the staff to "dig in" for "war;" when the response at USAID is to burn documents; when the response from other departments is to run to the district courts to order the reinstatement of legally terminated probationary workers; can't a resonable person assume some truth by the reactions of the people involved?
When President Trump says "These are people that are bad people, really bad people... the people who did this to us should go to jail," isn't he simply saying the same things that the former DoJ leadership was saying about him? Didn't Obama's and Biden's DoJ actually jail former Trump adminstration officials: Paul Manafort, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro?
Manafort was Trump's campaign manager for one month, and for that they went after him for failing to register as a foreign agent. Didn't they refuse to file those same charges against Hunter Biden?
Steve Bannon was President Trump's co-campaign manager after the convention, and for that they subpoenaed him, charged him with contempt of Congress, and jailed him. Didn't Eric Holder get charged with contemp of Congress? Did Holder get jailed?
Paul Navarro was similarly charged with contempt of Congress for failing to appear when subpoenaed and sent to prison for it. Didn't Hunter Biden fail to appear before Congress when he was subpoenaed? When was Biden sent to prison for it?
Selective outrage; select justice; selective journalism.
So what point were you trying to make with this link? Are you suggesting that Vance's comments about Europe's open immigration of Muslims being "civilizational suicide" is wrong or inappropriate? Mark Steyn has been saying the same thing since the early 2000s and it's only gotten worse.
Vance is probably referring to the rape gangs in Germany, and Germany's attempt to silence the news. Maybe it was the case of the German woman who was gang raped by Egyptian, Libyan, Kuwaiti, Iranian, Armenian, Afghan, and Syrian boys, and then four years later convicted of defamation and jailed for a weekend for calling one of her convicted rapists a 'disgraceful rapist pig." Her convicted rapist was given a suspended sentence and served no jail time.
He might be referring to Sweden's recent reversal of its immigration policies. He might also be thinking about how the French and the British are losing cultural control of their own countries due to Muslim migration.
But I'd like to know your point in posting the link about President Trump's speech at the Department of Justice to a thread about Vance's comments about Europe?
-PJ
Again, prove me wrong you’re not a jackal toady.
Wow! That was a lot to get to the point.
How does Vance square telling European countries to allow free speech? It wasn’t just Germany that you cited, but the UK and the whole of the EU as well. Among other issues, Vance alleged European Union "commissars" were suppressing free speech.
Now transition to the US where Trump in his speech to the DOJ took aim at journalists, judges, prosecutors as well as Biden officials, while hinting at legal action against what are perceived to be his rivals. Journalists would fall under the free speech umbrella.
It would seem the administration want freedom of speech across the pond while stifling criticism, whether correct or not, here.
It would seem the administration want freedom of speech across the pond while stifling criticism, whether correct or not, here.
How much of this "free speech" controversy is around the visa-holding pro-Hamas protestors that are being deported? These are also some of the "bad people" that President Trump is referring to. I've been posting since Oct 7 the US Code that says that endorsing or espousing a terrorist organization is a deportable offense. Anybody who is on an American university campus with a student visa who is supporting Hamas by name (not just anti-Israel sentiments) and chanting their direct slogans ("From the river to the sea") are committing deportable acts.
Is this what you're referring to as "stifling criticism here?"
Can you name an American journalist that President Trump has jailed or stifled? I can't. Kicking the AP out of the White House Briefing Room doesn't count; they're still free to report on the President. Being in THAT room is a privilege.
Now, under which administration did the following happen?
The EU wants wants what they consider disinformation stifled. That’s what Vance was referring to. He wants that lifted. Yet here in the US, Trump wants to stifle it. When it’s against him. He wants to use it, but not allow it when it pushes back against him. That’s why he named journalists in his rant at Justice.
Mr. Vice President, we did NOT vote for this.
It’s not suicide.
It’s murder.
Hwy Joe, the DU wants you back. Be I nice keyboard stooge and go home.
Journalists...
The Fourth Estate has become a fifth column.
Trump isn’t stifling free speech in any way.
The enemedia’s problem us that the American public now knows most of them for what they are.
Enemies of our republic.
I’ve got news for you.
Trump is the least of their problems.
Vote for what?
Offing ourselves.
“...a VP who expresses concern about Christians. I never thought I would see the day.”
We did have that Pence guy who was ultra Pharisaical about his (alleged) Christianity. But did he take action or speak out about the extermination of Christians? He was a mannequin and ineffective. Except on 1/6/21. He was very effective that day, working for his masters whomever they are/were.
I am at home. But it will sent DU.
R U drinking this early, again?
There may be some bad journalism out there, but some of the non traditional media folks do some pretty bad reporting.
Bad is not seditious.
As long as it’s not seditious, I will cut them some slack.
Seditious activity is often in the eye of the beholder. Frankly, what Vance is encouraging in Europe is exactly that.
That all you got, busker boy?
The same old Trump-hating tune...
Nice broadside. 
As usual, joeiscucked has got nothing but some feeble whining about the man he hates, President Trump.
And now it looks like he's got a new target for his foaming hatred - Vice President Vance.
This is how our little Lefty goombah "joescucks" is gonna spend the next twelve years:
I read that the right-leaning candidate won the primary, so the ruling elections committee nullified the primary and scheduled a new election?
I read that the same candidate was leading in the polls for the new election, so the ruling elections committee disqualified the candidate from running?
Is this disinformation or is this what free speech and democracy looks like in Europe as opposed to what's happening over here?
-PJ
Guess so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.