[mercy_dude]

> Who is being gone after?

Donald Trump, Ronald DeSantis, Greg Abott all have been under aggressive FBI investigation. Nikki Haley had her tax records leaked to media.

> what is so ruthless

There are multiple cases where even the judges were objecting FBI actions why they had to aggressively raid the peoples home. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/15/judge-questions...

[mindslight]

> Donald Trump, Ronald DeSantis, Greg Abott

You're not helping your case by starting your list with three examples that have strong indications of criminality. Is law enforcement expected to not investigate criminals just because they're in or running for political office? It seems like it would be more straightforward for Republicans to just distance themselves from criminals, rather than closing ranks and adopting some post-reality persecution complex.

[mercy_dude]

Define criminals. It’s not just an opinionated matter, any allegations have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt with presumption of innocence till proven guilty. Law works like that in this country. But also if a person is subject to criminal investigation for extended period of times (over three years), you would expect charges. So far other than some obscure “lying about net worth”, there is no charges.

Vindicating individuals you seem criminal with questionable raids from agencies with sweeping powers that are known for abuse of power have consequences. As in this case, it can very easily come for the other side. FBI is reportedly known for profiling MLK and other activists.

[pwinnski]

Your vocabulary reveals your opinion more than anything else, but to be clear: how law enforcement works is exactly how it is working. A search warrant was executed as part of a criminal investigation, and while the target of that warrant wants to call it a "raid" and suggest it was somehow improper, all indications are that the investigation is underway and is moving at a pace appropriate to the level of charges.

I mean, complaints in this very thread are that "we have a right to know" after six months, it should surprise nobody that we don't, actually, until charges are filed, and that six months isn't a long time when investigating complicated cases.

The FBI does have a storied history, but in this case there have been many checks along the way, including judges appointed by and requested by the target of the investigation, so it's hard to see how this might line up with previous incidents involving Black activists.

[mindslight]

Criminal - someone who commits a crime, by breaking criminal law (as contrasted with civil law). Examples of criminal laws include prohibitions on inciting a riot or human trafficking.

Law enforcement agencies are certainly corrupt with their own incentives, but people with resources to hire many expensive lawyers are best able to protect their own rights. They're also best able to delay the legitimate workings of the system, which is why talk about "extended period of times" is irrelevant. It's called "due process", and we afford it to the accused even though it makes the process slower.

The point about the FBI unjustly persecuting people is not an argument that immediately indicts every action by the system - treating it as such is fundamentally nihilism. As awareness of valid institutional criticism spreads throughout society, it is also taken advantage of by bad faith actors to distract from their misdeeds. A similar dynamic is Russia using valid criticism of the US empire to cover for their own immediate imperial genocide. At best, the argument is an indication to be skeptical of the FBI's narrative and to insist on a high standard of proof - both things that an army of well paid lawyers and publicists are already handling.