The Chris Krebs Investigation

[WilliamL]

On 4/20/2025 at 3:52 PM, unworthyservant said:

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.

 Politifact and the AP are two classic representatives of the leftist media.

Here is just one book from the other point of view, which I assume you haven't seriously researched:

Rigged - by Mollie Hemingway

" About the Book

" In her homage to the idea of a "big steal," conservative Mollie Hemingway believes that "capping their four-year campaign to destroy the Trump presidency, the media portrayed a Democratic victory as necessary and inevitable. [She posits that] Big Tech--wielding unprecedented powers--vaporized dissent and erased damning reports about the Biden family's corruption. And Democratic operatives, exploiting a public health crisis, ... manipulated the voting process itself"--Publisher marketing.

https://www.target.com/p/rigged-by-mollie-hemingway-hardcover/-/A-83226546

[unworthyservant]

19 hours ago, Orion said:

I further direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with any other agency head, to take all appropriate action to review Krebs’ activities as a Government employee, including his leadership of CISA.

You asked where the Executive Order compels a criminal investigation. First, an Executive Order is, as it's name implies, an order and not a simple suggestion. You or I can make a suggestion to any government agency but it carries little if any weight. Only the President can issue an Executive Order because only the President can order a Federal Agency to do anything. In the quote above, this order "directs" both the Attorney General and the Secretary to start an investigation into Mr. Krebs activities. It is an order! It compels the Departments to comply. Show me where one reputable Constitutional scholar says otherwise. And if you are a Constitutional Scholar, please provide your credentials. Any more questions?

[Orion]

Just now, unworthyservant said:

Executive Order is, as it's name implies, an order and not a simple suggestion

Yes. In this EO it is simply an Order to review and evaluate what the order alleges to be constitutional  violations, and to follow-up with a written report on its findings afterwards. 

 

4 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

this order "directs" both the Attorney General and the Secretary to start an investigation into Mr. Krebs activities.

That's not true.  There is no mention of the word "investigate".  The EO directs a review and evaluation of what the EO alleges.  That's not splitting hairs, because after a review and evaluation is complete, there may be the need to investigate. 

 

7 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

And if you are a Constitutional Scholar, please provide your credentials.

How would you like them: facsimile, USPS, FedEx, or just give you my word? 

[unworthyservant]

17 hours ago, WilliamL said:

 Politifact and the AP are two classic representatives of the leftist media.

Here is just one book from the other point of view, which I assume you haven't seriously researched:

Rigged - by Mollie Hemingway

" About the Book

" In her homage to the idea of a "big steal," conservative Mollie Hemingway believes that "capping their four-year campaign to destroy the Trump presidency, the media portrayed a Democratic victory as necessary and inevitable. [She posits that] Big Tech--wielding unprecedented powers--vaporized dissent and erased damning reports about the Biden family's corruption. And Democratic operatives, exploiting a public health crisis, ... manipulated the voting process itself"--Publisher marketing.

https://www.target.com/p/rigged-by-mollie-hemingway-hardcover/-/A-83226546

I'm familiar with Mark and Mollie Hemingway and their views. Are you suggesting that she has uncovered and/or published unimpeachable evidence that more "mentally-deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes" who "were incapable of speaking or writing," cast ballots in the 2020 election? (That is the subject of my post) Or are you just throwing up a smoke screen to avoid the actual facts? I've looked and can find nowhere that she has even mentioned the subject. I have no doubt that you consider any news outlet that doesn't support the "Big Steal" conspiracy to be leftist and thus incapable of truthful journalism. So, instead of a summary of Mrs Hemingway's book, can you provide empirical evidence that supports the notion that "thousands of mentally deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes voted illegally in the 2020 election? All the investigations I have seen say otherwise. If you have no evidence, what is the point of your post?

[unworthyservant]

9 minutes ago, Orion said:

Yes. In this EO it is simply an Order to review and evaluate what the order alleges to be constitutional  violations,

So, now you are drawing a distinction between reviewing and evaluating and investigating. What is an investigation if not a review and evaluation of criminal activity? And what exactly are the Constitutional violations into which they are looking?

 

12 minutes ago, Orion said:

How would you like them: facsimile, USPS, FedEx, or just give you my word

You could simply post them here for everyone to see.

[Orion]

5 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

What is an investigation if not a review and evaluation of criminal activity?

Let me give an example: When you file a tax return, it is not taken at face value, but reviewed and evaluated for accuracy and legitimacy. If there are "red flags" in that review and evaluation, an investigation into those "red flags" would follow, which might even bring about the necessity for a warrant application.  Or, after investigating, it might bring nothing, but chalk up the "red flags" to common human error. 

 

10 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

And what exactly are the Constitutional violations into which they are looking?

I suggest you go back and re-read the EO, but not in a cursory manner.  You'll see the alleged constitutional violations.  If you still don't see where the the EO alleges constitutional violations, check to see what biases you are harboring, and if you can check those biases, perhaps then you'll see. 

 

14 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

You could simply post them here for everyone to see.

That is akin to taking my word for it. 

Or are you the type that wants to do a dive into my background so as to add your own personal critique?  I call that what it is ubiquitous known as: cancel culture. 

[unworthyservant]

17 minutes ago, Orion said:

You'll see the alleged constitutional violations.  If you still don't see where the the EO alleges constitutional violations, check to see what biases you are harboring, and if you can check those biases, perhaps then you'll see. 

As I've already said, I've read and researched the EO quite extensively and I don't see the Constitutional violations to which you refer. Since you obviously see something that I (and many constitutional scholars) don't, please enlighten me. Exactly what are the Constitutional violations to which you refer, that are so clearly outlined in the EO? And I don't see my biases as I attempt to always look at every issue individually and research to find the truth regardless of which political ideology the parties involved espouse. So, please elaborate, as to what biases you refer. I am biased only to the truth in any matter. And BTW, you forgot your credentials.

Edited Friday at 02:39 PM by unworthyservant

[Orion]

43 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

I don't see the Constitutional violations to which you refer.

Alleged violations. 

 

43 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

Exactly what are the Constitutional violations to which you refer

Alleged violations. 

 

44 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

And I don't see my biases as I attempt to always look at every issue individually and research to find the truth regardless of which political ideology the parties involved espouse. So, please elaborate, as to what biases you refer.

Jumping to the conclusion that the EO compels an investigation when it clearly does not. Investigation is never in the EO.  A review and evaluation is not an investigation, you even cited the FBI's own terms on what is required for an investigation. Does the FBI have a similar rule for reviewing and evaluating prior to investigating?  Go and see. 

Jumping to the conclusion that Krebs is completely innocent without having any knowledge of facts and possible evidence of wrongdoing not disclosed in the EO. 

Jumping to the conclusion that the EO is a  retaliation against Krebs. 

No bias?  Sure. 

46 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

And BTW, you forgot your credentials.

No I haven't. I know well my credentials to speak on such matters.  That you refuse to take my word for my credentials is of no consequence to me, but certainly appears so to you. That, then, is your problem. Deal with it. 

[unworthyservant]

25 minutes ago, Orion said:

Alleged violations. 

 

Alleged violations. 

 

Jumping to the conclusion that the EO compels an investigation when it clearly does not. Investigation is never in the EO.  A review and evaluation is not an investigation, you even cited the FBI's own terms on what is required for an investigation. Does the FBI have a similar rule for reviewing and evaluating prior to investigating?  Go and see. 

Jumping to the conclusion that Krebs is completely innocent without having any knowledge of facts and possible evidence of wrongdoing not disclosed in the EO. 

Jumping to the conclusion that the EO is a  retaliation against Krebs. 

No bias?  Sure. 

No I haven't. I know well my credentials to speak on such matters.  That you refuse to take my word for my credentials is of no consequence to me, but certainly appears so to you. That, then, is your problem. Deal with it. 

As I thought. You have no answers, just more talking around the point. I'm tiring of all this talking in circles and I don't really care what your credentials are. Since you quote no credible sources for your assertions, I simply figured that maybe you were an expert on the subject. Looks like that was a foolish assumption. At any rate, since you refuse (or are unable to) give a straight answer, I'm bored with all the other nonsense and will no longer be playing your game of cat and mouse. I'm reminded of a couple of old sayings. First, the Jonathan Swift quote, "There are none so blind as those who will not see.". Then there's the old adage that says "them that knows, knows and them that don't know most often don't know they don't know". At any rate, I'll no longer be discussing your expert opinions (as I have only your word that you are learned enough to be an expert) unless you wish to provide credible evidence from unimpeachable sources for them.

[Orion]

8 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

As I thought. You have no answers, just more talking around the point. I'm tiring of all this talking in circles and I don't really care what your credentials are. Since you quote no credible sources for your assertions, I simply figured that maybe you were an expert on the subject. Looks like that was a foolish assumption. At any rate, since you refuse (or are unable to) give a straight answer, I'm bored with all the other nonsense and will no longer be playing your game of cat and mouse. I'm reminded of a couple of old sayings. First, the Jonathan Swift quote, "There are none so blind as those who will not see.". Then there's the old adage that says "them that knows, knows and them that don't know most often don't know they don't know". At any rate, I'll no longer be discussing your expert opinions (as I have only your word that you are learned enough to be an expert) unless you wish to provide credible evidence from unimpeachable sources for them.

Okay. Peace