The Chris Krebs Investigation

[unworthyservant]

With all the political upheaval in the US today, I thought I'd mention a story that has pretty much slipped through the cracks. It's the investigation of Chris Krebs. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Krebs, he was the Director of Trump’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Trump fired Krebs in November 2020 after he defended the integrity of the 2020 election. Now in 2025, he has ordered the DOJ to begin an investigation of Krebs. Trump himself said he was targeting the former public servant for saying the 2020 election was not rigged. In the order to investigate him, Trump said “Abusive conduct of this sort both violates the First Amendment and erodes trust in Government, thus undermining the strength of our democracy itself.” As the administration's top cybersecurity official, he was a key witness during Congress’s investigation into the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. In his testimony he said that Trump and Republican officials “lied to the American people about the security of the 2020 election.” This so upset the Trump campaign that Trump’s campaign attorney, Joseph diGenova,  said on Newsmax that Krebs “should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” Well, they can't draw and quarter him or take him out at dawn and shoot him, so they are having him investigated by the DOJ. So, is it acceptable in the US for someone to be be investigated for speaking out as an expert in election fraud on election fraud just because his opinion doesn't align with the claims of the President? That's the only reason given for the investigation.

 

[WilliamL]

On 4/18/2025 at 7:10 PM, unworthyservant said:

So, is it acceptable in the US for someone to be be investigated for speaking out as an expert in election fraud on election fraud just because his opinion doesn't align with the claims of the President? That's the only reason given for the investigation.

Whole books have been written about the many types of election fraud and interference that took place in the 2020 presidential election. For just one example, thousands of mentally-deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes, who hadn't voted in ages and were incapable of speaking or writing, suddenly "cast" ballots in the election. (Thanks to the generous "assistance" of their leftist caregivers, who had their facilities on lockdown because of Covid.)

[unworthyservant]

22 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Whole books have been written about the many types of election fraud and interference that took place in the 2020 presidential election. For just one example, thousands of mentally-deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes, who hadn't voted in ages and were incapable of speaking or writing, suddenly "cast" ballots in the election. (Thanks to the generous "assistance" of their leftist caregivers, who had their facilities on lockdown because of Covid.)

I've heard all these allegations ad nauseam from the right. I can find no credible reporting to support them. Could you please provide such evidence? When you make claims with no credible evidence to back them, I can only assume they are political propaganda or disinformation. In the case of election fraud, I always say follow the money. A week after the 2020 election, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick offered up to $1 million (paid from his campaign account) "“to incentivize, encourage and reward people to come forward and report voter fraud.” To this day, he has only had to pay out a total of $25,000 of that money as there was no proof of any voter fraud except one instance. That was Eric Frank, a poll worker, who received the money for his  reporting Ralph Holloway Thurman, a Republican who after voting once for Trump, attempted to vote a second time as his son. That's it! If all this fraud existed, why hasn't anyone else reported it and received their portion of the $1 million? The Michael Gabelman claims about thousands of what you call "mentally-deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes" who "were incapable of speaking or writing," (claims even he never made) casting ballots have been dis-proven by fact checkers everywhere from Politifact to the AP. Even Mr. Gableman could only provide 7 people whom he interviewed and claimed were incompetent. Of these 5 were proven competent and the other 2 were deemed to have dementia a full year after the election. I know the Washington Times made a big deal of the original claims and Trump touted them as gospel truth but where's the evidence?  

[Orion]

On 4/18/2025 at 9:10 PM, unworthyservant said:

With all the political upheaval in the US today, I thought I'd mention a story that has pretty much slipped through the cracks. It's the investigation of Chris Krebs. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Krebs, he was the Director of Trump’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Trump fired Krebs in November 2020 after he defended the integrity of the 2020 election. Now in 2025, he has ordered the DOJ to begin an investigation of Krebs. Trump himself said he was targeting the former public servant for saying the 2020 election was not rigged. In the order to investigate him, Trump said “Abusive conduct of this sort both violates the First Amendment and erodes trust in Government, thus undermining the strength of our democracy itself.” As the administration's top cybersecurity official, he was a key witness during Congress’s investigation into the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. In his testimony he said that Trump and Republican officials “lied to the American people about the security of the 2020 election.” This so upset the Trump campaign that Trump’s campaign attorney, Joseph diGenova,  said on Newsmax that Krebs “should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” Well, they can't draw and quarter him or take him out at dawn and shoot him, so they are having him investigated by the DOJ. So, is it acceptable in the US for someone to be be investigated for speaking out as an expert in election fraud on election fraud just because his opinion doesn't align with the claims of the President? That's the only reason given for the investigation.

 

Perhaps Krebs was a plant by the left, a la Ray Epps, or he went rogue for promises of a paycheck from someone like George Soros. 

In the end, it's all politics.

Take Joe Biden for example, letting Merrick Garland send an fully armed squad of federal agents to Mar a Lago to confiscate classified documents that DJT had previously declassified.  All the while letting Joe Biden slide after it was learned Biden had unsecured classified documents in his garage, documents Biden had no right as VP to possess.  Let's also not forget the reason the Bidrn regime gave for not prosecuting Biden for the crime with which the Biden regime charged DJT:  Joe's an old and feeble man.  And not to mention the mess the agents made after they went through Melanie's and Barron's underwear drawers. 

And then there's the time the Biden regime sent a squad of fully armed federal agents to a Christian pastor's house early in the morning to arrest him because the pastor was accused of simple assault while he was exercising his first amendment rights at an abortion clinic. 

I can go on and on about how the Biden regime weaponized the DOJ and its agencies for revenge against its perceived enemies, often employing threat of physical deadly force to do so,  but I'll leave it at these two perfectly clear examples of the hypocricy of the left. 

Peace. 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:24 PM by Orion

[unworthyservant]

1 hour ago, Orion said:

Perhaps Krebs was a plant by the left, a la Ray Epps, or he went rogue for promises of a paycheck from someone like George Soros. 

In the end, it's all politics.

Take Joe Biden for example, letting Merrick Garland send an fully armed squad of federal agents to Mar a Lago to confiscate classified documents that DJT had previously declassified.  All the while letting Joe Biden slide after it was learned Biden had unsecured classified documents in his garage, documents Biden had no right as VP to possess.  Let's also not forget the reason the Bidrn regime gave for not prosecuting Biden for the crime with which the Biden regime charged DJT:  Joe's an old and feeble man.  And not to mention the mess the agents made after they went through Melanie's and Barron's underwear drawers. 

And then there's the time the Biden regime sent a squad of fully armed federal agents to a Christian pastor's house early in the morning to arrest him because the pastor was accused of simple assault while he was exercising his first amendment rights at an abortion clinic. 

I can go on and on about how the Biden regime weaponized the DOJ and its agencies for revenge against its perceived enemies, often employing threat of physical deadly force to do so,  but I'll leave it at these two perfectly clear examples of the hypocricy of the left. 

Peace. 

 

 

That's all good and fine but the question wasn't about whataboutism! That's a game that leads one in a circle with no answers forthcoming. I could point to numerous instances on both sides where things were done that are questionable to say the least. And to what end? I guess that anyone who doesn't know that there is malfeasance on both sides will probably never learn. The old saying is "Them that knows, knows and them that don't know most often don't know that they don't know."  The question isn't are there other instances where political leaders made questionable decisions. Once again, the question is; Is there a  constitutional basis in the US to investigate a career federal employee who simply stated his expert opinion on a matter just because that opinion differed from the administration? Do you have an opinion on the question or do you want to play whataboutism? As for making allegations that he is somehow compromised when there has never been any question regarding his integrity is nothing but a low blow and certainly not a Christlike response or attitude.

[Orion]

20 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

Is there a  constitutional basis in the US to investigate a career federal employee who simply stated his expert opinion on a matter just because that opinion differed from the administration?

Okay. Lesson number one: the US government is tripartite constitutional republic consisting of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. Each branch is independent of the others, and each branch acts as a check and balance on the others. 

If an agency of the Executive branch believes it has probable cause to charge someone with a crime, or assemble a grand jury to hear evidence in an effort to secure an indictment, and does so, then any indictment or arraignment is then heard by the Judiciary, which will ultimately determine whether probable cause did in fact exist. 

If the Judiciary sets a precedent, which is upheld by the last court of appeal, the SCOTUS, then the Legislative branch has a constitutional right to pass laws that make void a particular Judicial precedent.  As long as that new law is determined by the Court to be constitutional, the new law remains in effect. 

If a law passed by the Legislature, and held constitutional by the Court, and enforced by the Executive, the plaintiff or respondent still has a constitutional right to challenge the government's application of that law as against him or as relates to his rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 

So, if you understand our constitutional republic, and you understand politics, you'll understand what I've just explained. 

In the end, Krebs  will have his day in court, and he'll either be found guilty, not guilty, or the case against him could be dismissed. 

[unworthyservant]

3 hours ago, Orion said:

So, if you understand our constitutional republic, and you understand politics, you'll understand what I've just explained. 

In the end, Krebs  will have his day in court, and he'll either be found guilty, not guilty, or the case against him could be dismissed. 

Thanks for the lesson from the first chapter of the textbook from "Introduction to American Government". In Chapter 2 it will introduce the idea that we are really a Constitutional Democratic Republic. It is a mixed system, neither pure republic nor pure democracy. The term "constitutional republic' is the simpler condensed version. You'll also find that we are a "federation of States". I'm no constitutional scholar but I am familiar with the 1st Amendment and thus the question that you still haven't answered. That is, is there any legitimate constitutional argument for having someone investigated with no evidence of wrongdoing except that he gave his opinion as a government expert in his field, which includes election security, just because it doesn't fit the narrative of the administration? 

[Orion]

3 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

there any legitimate constitutional argument for having someone investigated with no evidence of wrongdoing

If DJT's Executive Order re: Krebs is challenged and found by a competent court to be akin to a "bill of attainder" and thus unconstitutional, then Krebs will be vindicated.  

If however, DJT's EO on Krebs is found to be non-violative of the Constitution or of Krebs' constitutional rights, then DJT and the Constitution will be vindicated. 

Let's wait and see, because even legal experts don't agree whether an EO by the President that targets an individual is equivalent to a "bill of attainder".  Simply arguing the EO violates Krebs' 1st Amendment right does not make it so.  The checks and balances of the Executive Order by the Court must say so. 

[unworthyservant]

7 hours ago, Orion said:

If DJT's Executive Order re: Krebs is challenged and found by a competent court to be akin to a "bill of attainder" and thus unconstitutional, then Krebs will be vindicated.  

If however, DJT's EO on Krebs is found to be non-violative of the Constitution or of Krebs' constitutional rights, then DJT and the Constitution will be vindicated. 

Let's wait and see, because even legal experts don't agree whether an EO by the President that targets an individual is equivalent to a "bill of attainder".  Simply arguing the EO violates Krebs' 1st Amendment right does not make it so.  The checks and balances of the Executive Order by the Court must say so. 

Boy, that's quite an analysis. I didn't argue anything. I simply asked the question. That said, how can you possibly argue that if the order is upheld it is a victory for Trump AND the Constitution, whereas if Krebs is vindicated it will be a victory for Krebs but not the Constitution. How is it that the constitution is validated or vindicated only if it agrees with Trump? Last time I checked even the President is subject to the Constitution and not the other way around.

[Orion]

14 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

how can you possibly argue that if the order is upheld it is a victory for Trump AND the Constitution, whereas if Krebs is vindicated it will be a victory for Krebs but not the Constitution.

Not every case decided in court is a victory for the Constitution, such as Roe v. Wade, and Dred Scott v. Sanford, and so may other wrongfully decided matters.