The DOJ and FBI: Loyalty to Law, Not to a President

The question of whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should be loyal to a President or to the Constitution and the law has sparked a significant debate. In these discussions, the 2019 Hunter Biden laptop incident often comes up, with many questioning how and why these agencies did not inform President Donald Trump of the investigation. This article delves into this issue, examining the roles and functions of the DOJ and FBI, exploring the incident, and weighing in on the current dialogue.

Whose Loyal Are They?

The DOJ and FBI are supposed to be impartial to the administration. Their only loyalty is supposed to be to the Constitution and the rule of law. They exist to serve the American people, not to protect a particular President. However, history reveals that during instances of conflict between a President and the law, the DOJ and FBI often find themselves at odds, as seen with Nixon and more recently with Trump.

Why is this important? It underscores the principle that the government is supposed to be above political influence. The scandal surrounding Watergate (Nixon) and more recently, the Trump presidency, illustrate that when the President's actions conflict with the law, the DOJ and FBI become the guardians of the Constitution.

The Hunter Biden Laptop Incident: A Sensitive Case

One of the points of contention regarding the Hunter Biden laptop is the timing and circumstances of the investigation. Many argue that if the DOJ and FBI had informed President Trump about the Hunter Biden laptop in December 2019, it could have negatively affected the 2020 election. However, several facts challenge this narrative:

FBI Investigation Timing: The FBI seized the laptop after news stories about its contents, which Trump would have been aware of, especially since Giuliani, a Trump advisor, provided the hard drive to the media. Trump tried to use the issue as a political tool but ultimately, the election was determined by Trump's incompetence and the country's response to his administration's policies. Political and Legal Imperatives: The FBI and DOJ had legal and ethical obligations to investigate the laptop, regardless of political considerations. The laptop's contents could have revealed serious corruption or illegal activities, and it was their duty to uncover and report these findings. Internal Complications: The laptop's data was shared with not only the FBI but also with Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, close Trump advisors. This precludes the notion that the FBI acted alone or selectively, but rather, it reflects a broader political environment where the lines between political loyalty and legal obligation were blurred.

The incident involving the Hunter Biden laptop highlights a critical issue: the conflict between political loyalty and legal duty. While the FBI and DOJ maintained external impartiality, internal politics played a role, making the situation more complex.

Historical Context and Current Perspectives

The idea that the FBI and DOJ are working for a specific President or faction is a persistent myth. Historically, the 3-letter agencies (FBI, CIA, etc.) have been seen as tools for partisan control, which is a cause for concern. For example, there is no evidence that the FBI knew about 9/11 in advance or prevented the attacks, nor did they stop many of the mass shooters before their attacks. Instead, they were tasked with tracking down these individuals after the fact.

Despite such controversies, the Constitution remains the ultimate guide for the DOJ and FBI. In the case of Trump, the agencies remained law-abiding and did not succumb to political pressure. The idea that they could have acted differently in 2019 is a flawed interpretation of their duties and obligations.

Conclusion

It is crucial to recognize that the DOJ and FBI serve the Constitution and the rule of law, not individual presidents. The 2019 Hunter Biden laptop incident exemplifies this principle, where the agencies upheld their legal and ethical responsibilities despite political resistance. The actions of these agencies reflect a broader challenge of maintaining impartiality in the face of political pressures. Ultimately, the integrity of the legal system depends on the ability of these institutions to resist political influence and serve the public interest.

Supporting Claims and Sources

The White House: Official Statements and Documentation from the 2019 and 2020 periods. FBI and DOJ Internal Reports and Voter IDs Released by the DOJ and FBI. Legal Analysis and Expert Opinions from Constitutional Law Scholars and Legal Experts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the DOJ and FBI's duties are to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to individual presidents. Their actions in the 2019 Hunter Biden laptop incident exemplify their commitment to this principle. As citizens and voters, it is essential to understand and support the separation of powers and the rule of law to maintain a healthy and functional democracy.