.png)
I learned and
was reminded of a lot
researching this.
The
left isn’t as innocent as some on the left think. But Obama or Biden can’t be directly or
plausably connected to anything. trump? not so much.
OK, let's talk about DOJ
Weaponization. But let's stop pretending every example belongs in the same moral
and constitutional category.
Were there abuses and serious mistakes under
Obama and Biden? Absolutely. The IRS targeting conservative groups was wrong.
The FBI's FISA abuses were wrong. The Russia investigation contained serious
errors and unacceptable political bias. The Hunter Biden investigation raises
legitimate questions. I'm not going to defend any of that.
But compare the scale and consequences.
The Obama-era examples mostly involve
bureaucratic misconduct, questionable investigations, or agencies abusing their
authority. Those deserve accountability.
What happened under trump went considerably
further.
trump pressured his own Justice Department to
investigate claims that could overturn an election he had already lost. He tried
to get DOJ officials to validate unsupported claims of election fraud. He
considered replacing the acting attorney general with an official willing to
pursue those claims. He pressured state officials to change election results.
And ultimately, after exhausting those avenues, he attempted to remain in power
despite losing the election.
That's not merely "weaponizing the DOJ."
That's using the machinery of government to
attack the legitimacy of an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of
presidential power.
And now we're seeing the second chapter:
prosecutors who investigated trump being fired, government machinery being
directed toward people trump has publicly identified as enemies, and criminal
investigations of prominent political opponents being pursued by an
administration whose president has repeatedly demanded that those people be
punished.
So yes, criticize Obama and Biden. They deserve
criticism where the facts warrant it.
But pretending that an improperly handled FISA
application and an attempt to overturn a presidential election are morally and
constitutionally equivalent is like comparing a crooked cop stealing evidence to
the police department being ordered to arrest the mayor because the mayor lost
an election.
One is corruption. The other threatens the
entire democratic system.
Lets separate trump's
first term
and second term.
Some are much stronger than others.
The strongest examples
1. trump pressured DOJ to investigate election
claims and tried to replace the acting AG
This is probably the
single strongest example
from trump's first term.
After losing the 2020 election, trump and his
allies pressured DOJ to pursue claims of election fraud despite DOJ leadership
telling him there wasn't evidence sufficient to change the outcome. trump
considered replacing Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark,
who was willing to help advance the election claims.
The DOJ Inspector General formally investigated
whether DOJ officials had attempted to use the department to alter the 2020
election result.
This is substantially
stronger evidence of
presidential pressure on DOJ for political purposes
than simply saying "the FBI investigated trump."
2. trump repeatedly pressured Attorney General
Jeff Sessions over the Russia investigation
trump was furious that Sessions recused himself
from the Russia investigation. He publicly attacked Sessions and repeatedly
expressed frustration that the investigation wasn't being shut down.
The argument from the left is:
trump didn't merely complain about DOJ policy.
He wanted the attorney general to intervene in an investigation involving trump
himself.
That's a legitimate example of pressure on DOJ
independence.
There is an important
distinction, though: trump
had broad constitutional authority over the executive branch,
so criticizing or attempting to influence DOJ isn't automatically unlawful or
"weaponization."
3. trump fired FBI Director James Comey while
Comey was overseeing the Russia investigation
trump fired Comey in May 2017.
The left's argument isn't simply:
"A president can never fire the FBI director."
Presidents can.
It's that trump himself subsequently told Lester
Holt that the Russia investigation was part of his thinking:
"When I decided to just do it, I said to myself,
I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with trump and Russia is a made-up story.'"
And trump had previously asked Comey for
"loyalty" and reportedly asked him to let the Flynn investigation go.
That combination is why Democrats argue the
firing was an attempt to interfere with law enforcement rather than an ordinary
personnel decision.
The counterargument is obviously that trump had
legitimate reasons to believe Comey had mishandled the Clinton investigation and
had lost confidence in him.
4. trump tried to get Ukraine investigations
that would benefit him politically
This is another major example.
trump withheld military
aid from Ukraine while pressing President Zelensky to announce investigations
involving
Joe Biden and
Hunter Biden.
That became the basis for trump's first
impeachment.
The important
distinction here is that the requested investigations were
politically beneficial to trump,
because Biden was his potential 2020 opponent.
The left therefore considers it a textbook
example of using governmental power to obtain political advantage.
trump's defense was that he was concerned about
corruption and wanted Ukraine to investigate it.
5. trump asked China to investigate Biden
This one is even harder to explain as ordinary
DOJ policy because Trump said publicly:
"China should start an investigation into the
Bidens."
That wasn't the DOJ, but it illustrates the
broader argument about trump using government authority and foreign governments
to investigate a political opponent.
Then there's Trump's second term
This is where the left's case becomes
considerably larger.
6. Firing DOJ prosecutors who worked on cases
against trump
trump's DOJ fired prosecutors who had worked on
Jack Smith's cases against him.
For example, DOJ dismissed prosecutors and
support personnel connected to the classified-documents and
election-interference investigations.
The argument is straightforward:
If career prosecutors are fired because they
prosecuted the president, that's political retaliation against law enforcement.
And this isn't merely a Democratic talking
point. The firings themselves are documented.
7. Pursuing trump's political enemies
The left points to trump's second-term
investigations/prosecutions involving people such as:
The strongest argument
isn't that
everyone
investigated is innocent.
It's:
trump publicly identifies people as enemies,
demands that they be investigated, and then his DOJ investigates them.
That creates an obvious appearance problem.
For example, former FBI Director James Comey was
indicted in 2026. DOJ itself announced the indictment.
8. Firing a federal prosecutor after
conservative activists dug up old anti-trump writings
This is a particularly striking recent example.
In 2025, federal prosecutor Will Rosenzweig was
fired after a conservative commentator publicized an old blog in which
Rosenzweig had criticized trump. According to AP, DOJ fired him shortly
afterward, and he is now suing, alleging retaliation for protected speech.
Important:
that's an allegation in ongoing litigation, not a final judicial finding that
Trump ordered the firing illegally.
But politically, it's pretty powerful evidence
for the argument that the administration has been willing to remove DOJ
personnel based on their perceived political views.
9. The trump DOJ's "Anti-Weaponization Fund"
This is an interesting one because it's almost
tailor-made for the argument you're discussing.
In May 2026, DOJ
announced an
Anti-Weaponization Fund as
part of the settlement of Trump's lawsuit against the IRS. The stated purpose is
to compensate or address people who claim they were victims of government
"weaponization."
The left's criticism is basically:
trump is using the Justice Department to
investigate and potentially compensate people whom trump himself claims were
victims of political persecution.
That doesn't automatically make the fund
illegitimate, but it certainly raises questions about whether DOJ is being
transformed into an instrument for settling the president's political
grievances.
10. The broader purge of people associated with
trump's investigations
This is arguably more significant than any
single prosecution.
trump's DOJ has removed numerous personnel
associated with investigations into trump or January 6. Critics say this creates
a chilling effect throughout DOJ: career prosecutors learn that investigating
the president or his allies can end their careers.
There are now reports of sharply reduced DOJ
internal oversight and increased complaints of misconduct during trump's second
term. Reuters reported in August 2026 that DOJ's Office of Professional
Responsibility had shrunk substantially while misconduct complaints increased.
But here's the really important distinction.
I'd actually
agree with the right on one
fundamental principle:
The DOJ should not be used as a political weapon
regardless of which party controls the White House.
And I'd make the
argument based on
evidence
rather than party loyalty.
Obama:
There were legitimate scandals and
misconduct—IRS targeting, Fast and Furious, FBI/FISA abuses, etc.
Biden:
There are legitimate questions about
Hunter Biden, the FACE Act, social-media pressure, and aspects of DOJ
prosecutorial decisions.
trump:
There are substantially documented
examples of presidential pressure on DOJ surrounding the Russia investigation
and, much more seriously, the 2020 election. His second administration has also
taken unprecedented steps against prosecutors and perceived political opponents.
But there's an important difference between:
"There was misconduct within an administration's
law-enforcement agencies."
and:
"The president personally attempted to use law
enforcement to advance his political interests."
The
2020 election episode is particularly
damaging to Trump's side of this argument
because the president himself was directly involved. DOJ's own inspector general
thought the allegations were serious enough to open an investigation into
whether department officials had attempted to alter the election outcome.
"There have been legitimate examples of
misconduct under Democratic administrations. But if we're going to call
something 'weaponization,' let's distinguish bureaucratic misconduct from a
president personally pressuring DOJ to investigate political opponents or
overturn an election result."
Now lets talk about examples from the left of
“weaponizing" the DOJ
The main Obama examples I hear are
1. The IRS targeting conservative groups
This is probably the
strongest Obama-era example
members of the Epstein Party cite.
In 2013, the IRS
acknowledged that employees had subjected applications for tax-exempt status to
additional scrutiny based on terms such as
“Tea Party,” “Patriot,” and “9/12.”
The IRS inspector general found that inappropriate criteria were used to select
applications for additional review.
Republicans call this proof that the Obama
administration weaponized the IRS against conservatives.
The important caveat:
the evidence did
not
establish that Obama personally ordered the targeting.
The IRS inspector general's investigation found inappropriate conduct inside the
IRS, but the claim that Obama directed it politically is much harder to
substantiate.
So I'd concede:
“Yes, the IRS targeting of conservative groups
was wrong and politically damaging.”
But not:
“Obama ordered the IRS to target conservatives.”
2. Operation Fast and Furious
Republicans frequently
cite the Obama DOJ's
Fast and
Furious gun-trafficking
investigation.
ATF allowed suspected straw purchasers to buy
firearms in an attempt to trace them to Mexican drug cartels. Weapons
subsequently turned up at crime scenes, including firearms connected to the
killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
Republicans argued that the Obama DOJ concealed
information from Congress.
There really
was DOJ misconduct and a major
congressional dispute over
the operation. Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress
over documents related to the investigation.
But again, there's a crucial distinction:
There wasn't evidence establishing that Obama
personally ordered Fast and Furious or that the operation was designed as a
political attack on conservatives.
3. The FBI/DOJ treatment of Hillary Clinton vs.
trump
This is where Republicans make an argument that
has some legitimate factual material behind it.
They point to:
And now the
Durham report
gives conservatives additional ammunition. Durham concluded that the FBI acted
with insufficient analytical rigor and relied too heavily on unverified
information, including information originating from politically connected
sources.
But there's an important counterpoint:
The DOJ Inspector
General's earlier investigation found
serious problems with the FISA process,
but did not find that
political bias motivated the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane.
So this is a legitimate
area to criticize the FBI/DOJ—but
“Obama ordered the FBI to frame trump” goes considerably beyond what the
investigations established.
Biden examples are actually more numerous
4. The Hunter Biden investigation
Republicans argued that the Biden DOJ:
This became a major political controversy.
But there's an interesting wrinkle:
Biden's own DOJ appointed David Weiss as special
counsel to investigate Hunter Biden.
And Hunter was
eventually prosecuted.
Do you really think trump
would let that happen to Eric?
OK bad example what about Don
Jr or Ivanka?
So the evidence doesn't fit particularly well
with the simplistic claim that Biden simply ordered DOJ to protect his son.
Republicans nevertheless have a legitimate
argument about whether Hunter received preferential treatment during the earlier
stages of the investigation. AP reported extensively on the Republican
accusations and Garland's denial that he interfered.
5. The Mar-a-Lago search
This is probably
the biggest Biden-era
“weaponized DOJ” argument.
Republicans say:
Biden's DOJ raided the home of the leading
Republican presidential candidate to prevent him from running against Biden.
The FBI searched Mar-a-Lago in August 2022
pursuant to a warrant.
The Biden DOJ's response was essentially:
This wasn't political; trump retained classified
documents and did not fully comply with demands to return them.
And there's considerable evidence supporting the
latter explanation: NARA had already recovered documents, DOJ subpoenaed
additional material, trump's attorneys represented that additional documents had
been returned, and investigators subsequently found additional boxes.
So
“the Biden DOJ searched Trump's home” is
true.
“Biden ordered the FBI to raid Trump's home” is
not established.
And that's a very clear distinction.
6. The January 6 investigation/prosecutions
This is probably the largest category.
Republicans argue that Biden's DOJ:
There are legitimate
debates over
charging
decisions, sentencing disparities and prosecutorial discretion.
But there's an important problem with the “Biden
personally weaponized DOJ against trump” argument:
The federal cases
against trump were brought by
special counsel Jack Smith,
not directly by Biden.
And the legal system ultimately had to deal with
those cases through judges and courts.
7. The “51 intelligence officials / Hunter
laptop” issue
This is another one Republicans frequently bring
up.
In October 2020, 51 former intelligence
officials signed a letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop story had the
characteristics of Russian information operations.
Republicans argue that the Biden campaign
coordinated with former intelligence officials to suppress damaging information
shortly before the election.
That's a
legitimate controversy worth
discussing, particularly
because the laptop was later authenticated as containing genuine Hunter Biden
material.
But there's a distinction between:
“The Biden campaign promoted a misleading
narrative about the laptop.”
and
“Biden weaponized the DOJ against Republicans.”
The first is a much easier claim to substantiate
than the second.
The House Republican weaponization report made
this and alleged government pressure on social-media companies central parts of
its argument.
8. Biden DOJ and the FACE Act / pro-life
protesters
This is becoming an increasingly important
conservative example.
The Biden DOJ prosecuted
some people under the
Freedom
of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act,
particularly in cases involving abortion-clinic protests.
The trump DOJ now claims
the Biden administration
selectively enforced the law against pro-life protesters while treating other
protesters differently. Its
2026 Weaponization Working Group specifically alleges that the FACE Act was
weaponized against pro-life Americans.
Again, there's a
legitimate question here about
prosecutorial discretion and equal application of the law.
But saying:
“Biden weaponized the DOJ”
requires establishing that Biden himself
directed those prosecutions for political purposes—which is a much higher
evidentiary bar.
“There have absolutely been instances of
misconduct, politically troubling decisions and unequal treatment involving
Democratic administrations. The IRS targeting of conservative groups is a good
example. The FBI's handling of the trump-Russia investigation had serious
problems, particularly the FISA abuses. And there are legitimate questions about
the Biden DOJ's handling of Hunter Biden and the FACE Act.”
“But none of those facts automatically proves
that Obama or Biden personally ordered the DOJ to attack their political
opponents. That's the same evidentiary standard I apply to trump.”
There's an important distinction in the trump
comparison
The trump-era
examples aren't simply “DOJ investigated a Republican.”
The strongest trump
examples involve
the
president himself attempting to influence law enforcement or use government
power against political adversaries.
That's why things such
as trump's pressure on DOJ officials concerning the 2020 election, his demand
that officials pursue alleged election fraud, and his pressure on his own
attorney general over investigations are more directly relevant to the word
“weaponization.”
And even Durham's
report—which is one of the strongest pieces of evidence Republicans have—needs
to be represented honestly: Durham severely criticized how the FBI conducted the
Russia investigation, but
he
did not establish that Obama personally ordered the FBI investigation as a
political weapon.