Will the FBI/DOJ investigate the Democratic presidential nominee?

I basically feel at this point that it doesn’t matter one iota who the Democrats nominate for the 2020 election; they could nominate a pet rock and there would still be calls from Trump and his supporters to investigate it. And obviously, given that Comey’s CYA October 2016 letter basically threw the election to Trump, the spectre of another investigation should be very concerning to Democratic prospects.

Especially now that Trump has his respective toadies in charge of the DOJ (Barr) and FBI (Wray), it seems more plausible than ever that they could assent to launching an investigation of the Democratic nominee.

I don’t think there’s any evidence to date that suggests Wray is a toady. Barr? Absolutely, but Wray has stood up to the president on several occasions.

I kind of don’t care if they do. If they do and turn up nothing, then it will clearly be a political endeavor and any fallout will happen in the Republican Party’s direction. If they do and turn up something of substance, well, good I guess. The only reason the Mueller investigation was so interesting is because it kept spitting out indictments & guilty pleas from people in orbit around Trump. If it’d been cricket city it would have been shuttered and forgotten long ago.

We have a prospective candidate who claims to be gay. What if he’s lying?

It’s already out there that he’s not gay enough. As if Randy Rainbow would be a great uniter.

I laughed out loud.

I feel like it would take a lot of people at a lot of levels to carry out an actual nefarious investigation just because the director happens to be a Trump toady.

As of now the only thing that I can think of that could be even slightly worthy of investigating would be Biden and the accusations of sexual harassment. Even that would be a stretch, and anything else would be obvious harassment (at least I hope it would be obvious to most people). That doesn’t mean he isn’t going to try it, just that the plan is not likely to succeed.

As a side note, my trust in Trump is so low that it wouldn’t surprise me if he already has some plans to order the secret service people that are eventually assigned to protect the Democratic nominee to act as spies, sabotage the campaign, or act in some other harmful way. When he recently fired the head of the secret service that was one of things that crossed my mind.

This has been linked elsewhere on the SDMB.

The Republican National Committee, which is taking the lead on opposition research ahead of 2020 in coordination with the campaign, has been funding a network of trackers in all the early states. It’s already out filming Democratic candidates, trying to catch their mistakes — especially in smaller, more rural settings away from the eyes of the national media.

[ul]“We started gathering research on 2020 candidates in spring of 2018,” Mike Reed, the RNC’s deputy chief of staff for communications, told me.
[li]The RNC is “going to make whoever the nominee is radioactive well before they get the nomination,” a former campaign official told Axios. “That’s Trump’s strategy. Stay at 45-46% [in the polls] and just make the other guy radioactive.”[/ul][/li][/quote]

To the OP, I would hope that the FBI would refrain from launching an investigation merely for political purposes. Sure, if there’s evidence of serious wrong-doing, have at it, but the overall trend towards using the criminal justice system as an extension of political disputes is disheartening, and I’d like to see it reversed. To date, I have no reason to expect that the eventual Dem nominee will fall under FBI investigation, but I would have never been able to guess some of the nonsense that people like HRC or John Edwards would engage in prior to it coming to light, so who knows.

BTW, 46% in the polls is a good day for President Trump, but the Dem candidates seem to be doing their best to help him turn them “radioactive”. Reparations, socialism, the Green New Deal, gun control, etc.

Thank you for pointing out the possibility that they can/will take the reasonable positions of Democrats and turn them “radioactive” through wordplay/hype. I like how you didn’t name any particular current Democratic hopeful and went for applying those toxic labels to the party itself.

Where was the “wordplay/hype” in your eyes?

USA Today - Sen. Cory Booker plans to introduce slavery reparations bill to Senate

Is USA Today engaging in “wordplay/hype”?

NYT - Socialism and the 2020 American Election

Was I engaging in “hype”? Is the New York Times engaging in “wordplay”?

Let’s do the Green New Deal next: In February it was reported that Klobuchar “would vote yes” on the Green New Deal and then in March she didn’t.

What’s left? Gun control? Is CNN engaging in “worldplay”?

CNN - Democratic contenders step up calls for gun control legislation following Illinois shooting

So, I ask again, what did you see as “wordplay/hype”?

missed the edit window, but in case it wasn’t obvious to everyone, I was certainly not “applying those toxic labels to the party itself”. My post referred to “the Dem candidates”, and said nothing about “the party itself”, but if you already think “gun control” and “the Green New Deal” are “toxic labels”, you might as well give up now, Republicans have already won.

Nah, Trump wouldn’t order the FBI to start an investigation.

He knows that’s what the FSB is for.

Exactly. Trump doesn’t have to order his minions to do anything. The Russians will gladly do it, and they’ll be sure to find something, even if nothing is there.

After all, there are still plenty of people out there who believe Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, and Ted Cruz’ father killed JFK.

As a matter of policy, I don’t think it’d be a bad idea to automatically investigate all major candidates. If they’re dirty, then we deserve to know that. And if they’re clean, well, we deserve to know that, too. Just as long as all of the investigations are concluded in a timely manner, and the investigators don’t say “Oh, wait, we didn’t check under the couch cushions for evidence; who knows what might be there?” a week before the election.