Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So should the FBI be defunded?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (21807points) 1 month ago

After their raid on the Don Fathers home, some on the right are screaming for the FBI to be defunded.
They say it was just a political ploy from the evil left.
Right with a director that was appointed by Trump himself.
What I like is after a bunch of unarmed black men were shot by police people were screaming defund the police, and the right at the time were saying that is a pretty stupid thing to say.
So is the right being stupid with saying defund the FBI at this time?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

How about defunding everything? Starting over from scratch? So we can remember what anarchy is like?

The world is going bankrupt anyway and we might get what we wish for?

kritiper's avatar

No. What an overreaction!

RayaHope's avatar

“So should the FBI be defunded?” NO!
“So is the right being stupid with saying defund the FBI at this time?” YES!
Funny how the shoe is on the other foot it is suddenly too small and pinches.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

No

Right BE stupid !

Trump BE stupid ! Classified documents could be his end or DOJ for January 6th or NY for tax evasion or wire fraud for loan documents.—Fred wont be ther to sace his ass.

Smashley's avatar

If the FBI needs to go, do it by law and figure out how to replace it. I’m not familiar with the defund argument but it sounds more like showmanship than seriousness.

The real purpose of making this argument, is not to defund the FBI, but to ridicule the alleged Democratic position of defunding police,

The FBI has its problems, and a restart could be good for the country, but there needs to be a better plan.

KNOWITALL's avatar

No, this is great for Trump and the Alt Right, carry on.

HP's avatar

You gotta love em. “defund the FBI”? Back in the days before conservatism was a pseudonym for brain dead such a slogan would be regarded as “soft on crime.” Today we find the most rabidly loudmouthed conservatives insisting we coddle a known and DANGEROUS, lifelong criminal conman, sexual predator, extortionist, tax cheat, swindler, racist money laundering
racketeer seditionist. Go figure.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Defended, not defunded.

That idiot woman from NW Georgia is even stupider than I thought. Marjory Taylor Greene wants to defund the FBI – total idiocy.

jca2's avatar

From the NY Times, today:

“This is the inevitable result of the Republican Party being under the control of a man who prides himself on his impunity. “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue,” boasted the then-candidate Trump in 2016, well before he won the Republican nomination for president, “and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Unfortunately, that may now be the truth.”

RayaHope's avatar

@HP Oh God YES!!

hat's avatar

You know it’s possible to be against Trump and not support evil organizations at the same time, right? The FBI is not your friend.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Trump supposedly left the White house with boxes of classified documents, that might be in the nation’s best interest to retrieve them.
The FBI didn’t do this because the left asked them to , and they needed a judge to sign on a search warrant, and the right think it’s an evil left wing plan.
Look at how much they lost their mind on emails sent on an incorrect server.
Now their former leader left with classified documents and hey no problem.
I can understand why the Government wants them back ,I hope the average idiot can as well.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Just to clarify, invesigators went in June seeking more documents and info foe the archives. He had already turned over most in February.

The raid was to make sure no other documents they wanted were there.
The Presidential Records Act doesnt have an enforcement mechanism and thus no charges would be filed regardless. The Federal statue does carry a fine and jail term for the removal or destruction. BUT if guilty the person can be barred from public office.

It’s ridiculously inappropriate as even Nixon got a subpeona for his recording’s. Smh. It’s almost comical to watch.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

They may been have looking for missing Secret and Top Secret documents.

Those consequences !

seawulf575's avatar

Defunded? No. Purged? Absolutely. Do a feed and bleed and get more honest folks in there. How about restructured? Have them report only to the SCOTUS? Remove them from Congress or from the Executive branch. Demand full transparency on all investigations.

jca2's avatar

Weren’t the Repubs rubbing their hands together with glee when the FBI under Comey brought up the whole “Hillary’s emails” thing? I think that contributed greatly to her losing the election. Then they turned tail and said “Woops, our mistake, it wasn’t a problem.” Let alone that members of Trump’s family did the same thing (sending emails from a non-secure, non-government email server) but that was ok for them. Anyway, today, I read on a news site (AOL) that Hillary has merchandise that says “but, her emails.” hahaha

Tropical_Willie's avatar

“Have them report only to the SCOTUS”

But FBI are the executive branch of the government and should not report to the right wing conservative SCOTUS.

Some people may think all branches of government should report to a Hitler wannabe !

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Remember @seawulf575 The FBI Director was appointed by Trump himself.

RayaHope's avatar

@seawulf575 “Federal Bureau of Investigation” the name alone implies an impartial investigating agency! They should NOT “report” to anyone! Let alone a branch of government that powerful.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 It doesn’t really matter who appointed who. We have seen over the last decade where the FBI has let their personal feelings drive their investigations, we have seen them being biasedly selective of which potential crimes they want to investigate, we have seen all sorts of incongruity. Any police organization that can be weaponized for political gain needs to be out of the hands of the politicians. And they should have to fully justify why they do and don’t investigate things.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Sure, the Hillary e-mail thing is a perfect example. Look at what is going on against Trump and what happened with Hillary. The FBI thinks Trump took things to his home and destroyed them. They storm into his home, throw everyone out, and tear the place apart looking for anything they can use against him. Now consider Hillary. Her records were subpoenaed and THEN she decided which e-mails were pertinent and deleted 30,000 of them. We have only her word they weren’t smoking guns. But the FBI did nothing about destruction of evidence. They asked her nicely for her server and she refused. Did they storm in and grab it? No, they let HER find a company to do “a forensic audit” after which the evidence was destroyed…again. THEN when actual evidence of her lying to the FBI about never losing controls of classified materials they start finding case after case after case. Did they arrest her for lying to the FBI as so many of Trump’s associates were charged? NO. The loss of control of the classified materials carries stiff penalties of fines or imprisonment or both. Does she get charged with these crimes? NO. They say she “didn’t mean to” and so they let it drop. But the law specifies that intent or gross incompetence is not an excuse. So “she didn’t mean to” is a direct violation of the law.

So in one case, they storm the person’s home. They don’t say what they are looking for nor what they are investigating. The people are thrown out of their own home so they can’t see what the agents are doing. In the other, they legally tell the person they want her emails and she destroys a bunch. They say they want to do a forensic audit of her equipment and she says no, but brings in her own company to do it and has that company destroy the equipment afterwards. They still find evidence of her crime and do nothing about it, creating a statute to the law that not only doesn’t exist but is specifically contradictory to what the law says so they can justify not prosecuting her.

Do you see maybe just a little incongruity in how they treat conservatives and liberals?

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie The SCOTUS has nothing to gain with the FBI reporting to them. Every other branch has politicians that have to be re-elected, who have political agendas that the FBI is being used for.

seawulf575's avatar

@RayaHope Impartial investigations? Yes, you’d think so. In an ideal world that would be right. But having them as a paramilitary group that is not answerable to anyone would be an extremely dangerous thing. The FBI Director would take on the power of the POTUS in many cases. You are definitely too young to remember J. Edgar Hoover. This man had dirt on just about everyone and wielded tremendous power over our government.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther