By Matt Underwood California Governor Gavin Newsom has recently revealed that the Department of Justice is investigating him and his wife. This announcement came via a video post on social media, where Newsom stated that federal agents had been making contact with his family, friends, and former employees. He characterized these actions not as the pursuit of a discovered crime, but rather as an effort to “simply find one.”
From this perspective, these supposed investigations are not designed for success in terms of achieving a conviction. Instead, their perceived purpose is to inflict cost. This cost extends beyond mere financial expenditure, encompassing significant drains on time, emotional well-being, and reputation. The notion that the Department of Justice might engage in such “lawfare” so early, and so far in advance of a potential 2028 election cycle, is viewed by some as remarkably shortsighted. A more strategically timed investigation, they suggest, would align the news cycle with peak election season, thereby maximizing its impact.
The idea of a “weaponization fund” is also brought up, implying a pattern of the Department of Justice resorting to investigations when they are unsuccessful in court. The argument is that these investigations are their primary tool, a substitute for actual convictions. They are seen as individuals or entities determined to create the *perception* of criminality because they lack the capacity to establish it factually.
It’s also suggested that no matter how hard some may try, certain figures will always have more actual criminal convictions than any Democratic politician they oppose. The emphasis here is on the public relations aspect of criminal investigations, noting how much attention they garner. Examples like the handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the investigations into Hunter Biden are cited as precedents where investigations were used as political weapons, now seemingly extended to Governor Newsom as well.
The strategy, it appears, is to have the public equate a criminal investigation with an indictment. This is particularly effective, it’s argued, when actual convictions are elusive due to a lack of substantiated wrongdoing. Such tactics are viewed as a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, particularly when framed as politically motivated “fake news investigations.” The current DOJ is even characterized as an extension of a past administration, allegedly weaponizing its power against perceived enemies.
A particular point of contention is the perceived hypocrisy of certain political factions. The argument is made that Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for pursuing such tactics, especially when precedent has been set by previous administrations. The irony is highlighted: while those on one side might be convinced of guilt based solely on an investigation, they remain unbothered by actual convictions of those they support.
This behavior is attributed by some to being “brainwashed in a cult,” with the Republican party allegedly planning a campaign to smear Newsom, potentially to benefit candidates like Vance or Rubio in the future. The outcome, it’s predicted, will be more political theater and insubstantial claims rather than tangible results. Yet, the opposing viewpoint asserts that Gavin Newsom is indeed a “crook” and that this investigation, regardless of its origins or perceived motives, is a “sham,” indicating that multiple truths can coexist.
Past actions of Governor Newsom are brought up, including broken campaign promises and the controversial French Laundry dinner during COVID-19 lockdowns, suggesting a pattern of questionable behavior that fuels such scrutiny.
The focus on taxes is also noted, with the suggestion that those who engage in tax evasion may project that behavior onto others, rather than seeing investigations as objective pursuits. The question of whether this constitutes the “weaponization of the DOJ,” particularly when some investigations are attributed to the current administration, is posed. It’s also pointed out that an investigation into Newsom’s chief of staff that led to a guilty plea occurred under the Biden DOJ.
Regardless of whether concrete evidence is found, the mere existence of an investigation is seen as potent. The assumption that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” is pervasive, leading the public to believe in wrongdoing. Furthermore, it can prompt allies to distance themselves, fearing they too might become targets or opting for a “safer” candidate in future elections. This, it’s argued, is the very essence of politicized investigations, potentially boosting Newsom’s electability by casting him as a victim.
The call for the DOJ to investigate itself is also made, questioning the integrity of its own processes. The difficulty Democrats seem to face in finding strong presidential candidates is also mentioned.
The current political landscape is described as a “joke,” where simply stating someone is “under investigation” is enough to create a presumption of guilt. This tactic is also seen as a way to make it difficult for others to be associated with Newsom, while he himself might be able to withstand such attacks. The intention behind these investigations is to create headlines and send a message to those who are not as high-profile as a governor, similar to past instances where last-minute investigations dominated election cycles.
This is further framed as providing “red meat” to a specific political base and intimidating anyone who isn’t a governor of California, a clear example of alleged “weaponization” of the DOJ. The common saying, “You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride,” is invoked, suggesting that the process itself is the punishment.
There’s also a cynical view that if jailing Newsom and replacing him with a Republican were possible, the benefit would outweigh a mere headline, indicating a potential long-term strategy rather than just a short-term political stunt. The possibility of muddying the waters to the point of creating a drawn-out, contentious situation similar to past political battles is also raised. The aggressive pursuit of such investigations, rather than a slow-walk, is seen as a way to potentially secure a felony conviction and label the left as hypocritical for electing a convicted felon.
The strategy, from this perspective, relies on the perceived susceptibility of certain voters to manipulate information. It’s argued that the Republican base is not discerning and that political strategists exploit this by creating the *perception* of wrongdoing, amplified by partisan media outlets and online operatives.
The contrast is drawn with the situation of January 6th defendants, suggesting a perceived double standard. The emphasis is on who is considered a “threat,” and a belief that many political actors are not simply brainwashed but intentionally malicious and unashamed of hypocrisy. The nature of politics is acknowledged as being rife with power-seeking individuals, often carrying “corruption baggage.”
A challenge is issued to name specific crimes Newsom has been charged with or three concrete examples of his alleged “crook” actions, juxtaposing this with Donald Trump’s numerous felony convictions and significant civil fraud penalties. The sentiment of “We deserve better” is met with a counter-argument that a significant portion of the population does not respect democracy or actively works to undermine it, questioning who “deserves better.” The low voter turnout is highlighted as further evidence of this apathy.
Despite criticisms, the idea of voting for Newsom over Trump is presented as a pragmatic choice, albeit an undesirable one for some. The concern is that such investigations, even if they were more effective in the past, are unlikely to be successful in the current climate of perceived political bias. The comparison to the public’s distrust of Hillary Clinton, despite Trump’s own legal issues, is drawn.
The primary motivation behind these actions is posited as the desire to harass and intimidate political opponents, making an example of them for others. It’s also suggested that this is precisely what Trump desires, focusing on punishing perceived enemies rather than on long-term political strategy like upcoming elections. The “insanely incompetent” nature of these actions is attributed to their origin solely in Trump’s directives, which do not lend themselves to sound investigations. The very stability of upcoming midterms is even questioned.
Finally, a harsh assessment is made of the political party’s inability to win through legitimate means, suggesting that their history of cheating is the reason for events like January 6th, as they cannot conceive of victory without resorting to such tactics.