Imagine a bank robber standing outside the bank yelling at the cops:
“I know you’re going to arrest me! That’s what cops do—you’re going to arrest me. Total witch hunt!”
Then he goes in, robs the bank, and the cop does, in fact, arrest him.
Should the officer let him walk free because the suspect predicted the arrest?
This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s the rhetorical shield now being deployed around Joe Biden. As Trump’s DOJ begins looking into allegations of aides concealing Biden’s cognitive decline and possible misuse of executive authority (autopen controversy), critics are calling it “political retribution.” Biden and Harris campaigned on this fear in 2020, and the media echoed it for years: “Trump will seek revenge.”
But here’s the problem. Prediction is not exoneration. If Biden’s team committed acts that raise legal or constitutional questions, the fact that they warned Trump would come after them does not erase the need for scrutiny.
And to understand why this isn’t just tit-for-tat politics, let’s revisit the last administration’s ordeal: the Trump-Russia “collusion” saga.
How DOJ Investigations Are Supposed to Work
When the Department of Justice (DOJ) looks into possible wrongdoing, there’s a clear, step-by-step process:
- Triggering Event
- A credible allegation, public misconduct, whistleblower report, or evidence referred by Congress, an Inspector General, or law enforcement.
- Preliminary Inquiry
- DOJ lawyers assess whether there’s enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a formal investigation.
- At this stage, hearsay and opposition research don’t cut it—they need verifiable facts.
- Opening an Investigation
- If suspicion is justified, DOJ authorizes an investigation: subpoenas, interviews, and document reviews begin.
- Special Counsel Appointment (if necessary)
- When potential conflicts of interest arise (e.g., investigating a sitting president), the Attorney General may appoint an independent special counsel.
- Prosecution Decision
- Only after gathering evidence does DOJ decide whether charges are warranted.
This framework exists to prevent partisan fishing expeditions while ensuring no one is above the law.
Why This Matters
One was born of political whispers and an unverified dossier. The other stems from observable facts and insider admissions.
Calling both “political retribution” ignores the massive difference in how they began.
Compare and Contrast: Trump-Russia vs Biden Investigations
For four years, Trump was investigated over claims that his campaign colluded with Russia to win in 2016. The media assured the public there was “mounting evidence.” Lawmakers promised “bombshells.” In the end? Nothing. The Mueller report found no evidence of collusion.
Now contrast that with Biden. Millions of Americans watched him falter in live debates, aides admitted post-election to shielding him from unscripted moments, and his own physician refused under oath to answer questions about Biden’s cognitive fitness, pleading the Fifth.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
The Real Tale of Two Investigations
| Feature | Trump–Russia (2016–2019) | Biden Investigations (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Core Allegation | Trump campaign conspired with Russia to sway 2016 election—based entirely on whispers, Steele dossier, and uncorroborated claims | Biden aides concealed his cognitive decline; may have executed official actions (autopen) without his awareness; widespread post-election insider leaks confirm worry |
| Primary Evidence | Steele dossier (Clinton/DNC oppo research later discredited); FBI’s own agents admitted “no verification” | Biden’s very public debate freeze-ups, visible confusion, aides’ and media leaks post-election saying they “covered” for him; physician pleading the Fifth under oath |
| Public Behavior | Nothing. No evidence of collusion ever visible to public—allegations created entirely behind the scenes and “leaked” to press to build a false narrative | Everything. Biden’s public performances raised questions worldwide; aides shielded him; MSM carried water during campaign then turned on him post-Trump victory |
| Media Role | Carried the narrative relentlessly (“bombshell” stories weekly); some outlets still claim it was real despite Mueller’s findings | Actively suppressed Biden health questions in 2024; mocked critics as conspiracy theorists; post-election flipped to “we always knew he was struggling” exposés |
| Who Initiated? | Clinton campaign → Perkins Coie → Fusion GPS → Steele dossier → FBI buy-in | Trump DOJ post-2024 election; sparked by public behavior, sworn testimony gaps, and insider leaks |
| Was evidence verified? | No—FBI knew Steele’s info was “unverified” by Oct 2016 but pursued FISA warrants anyway (Horowitz report) | Stronger prima facie case; public behavior + aides’ admissions + physician Fifth Amendment plea create a clear reason to investigate |
| Investigative Duration | 3 years (Mueller probe: 675 days, $32M) | TBD—early stages but faces accusations of being “retribution” |
| Outcome | Mueller: “No evidence Trump conspired with Russia” (Mueller report PDF) | Unknown—but mounting circumstantial and testimonial evidence suggests at least administrative misconduct by aides |
Why “Retribution” Is a Lazy Defense
The “retribution” narrative assumes bad faith, but let’s flip it:
- When Trump was investigated based on flimsy, unverified opposition research, critics called it “defending democracy.”
- Now Biden’s visible struggles and aides’ own admissions are treated as irrelevant because Trump is the one asking questions.
That’s not legal reasoning. That’s politics.
The Reality
This isn’t about Trump “getting even.” It’s about whether Biden’s White House:
✅ Misled voters on his cognitive state.
✅ Allowed aides to execute actions without proper presidential oversight.
✅ Covered for his incapacity in ways that violate constitutional norms.
If those things happened, they’re not minor offenses. They cut to the heart of executive authority.
Final Word
If a cop can’t ignore a crime just because the suspect yells “you’re gonna arrest me,” why should a DOJ ignore credible signs of misconduct because Biden predicted Trump would investigate?
Justice isn’t about who yelled “witch hunt” first. It’s about facts.
One investigation was built on whispers. The other is staring us in the face.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #Trump #Biden #DOJ
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply