Trump 2024 — The second term

[Magyars]

 

[DragonGunner]

I just saw Fani Willis, with all her incompetence just win re-election big time. Fulton County is 43% black and South Fulton its city is 93% black making it the blackest city in America. And 90% of blacks vote democrat. Make America Marxist. For all Trump did, the walking dead is no tv show.

 

[Alamo]

 

[jamil]

Marjorie Taylor Greene says FBI planned to 'assassinate' Donald Trump

The FBI insists its reference to "use of deadly force" during the Mar-a-Lago raid was "standard protocol."

www.newsweek.com

This is why people think Republicans are bat **** crazy.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Marjorie Taylor Greene says FBI planned to 'assassinate' Donald Trump

The FBI insists its reference to "use of deadly force" during the Mar-a-Lago raid was "standard protocol."

www.newsweek.com

This is why people think Republicans are bat **** crazy.

Well... why else would they expect to need to use deadly force to recover some documents? Did they authorize the use of deadly force to get the documents from Biden's garage?

 

[DadSmith]

Marjorie Taylor Greene says FBI planned to 'assassinate' Donald Trump

The FBI insists its reference to "use of deadly force" during the Mar-a-Lago raid was "standard protocol."

www.newsweek.com

This is why people think Republicans are bat **** crazy.

FBI was 'prepared to use deadly force' in Trump raid

A new court filing unsealed on Tuesday in the Trump classified documents case revealed federal agents were prepared to use 'deadly force' when executing a raid at Mar-a-Lago in 2022.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Was this going to be a "lawful" assassination?

 

[jamil]

Well... why else would they expect to need to use deadly force to recover some documents? Did they authorize the use of deadly force to get the documents from Biden's garage?

I would not be surprised if there was an intent to assassinate Trump. Democrats are crazy. I suspect that maybe they're this crazy. But. In this way? Nah. How many people would they have to kill to keep the truth from coming out about that?

Another problem with this narrative is that I don't know what FBI protocol usually is. Isn't the use of deadly force routinely given for raids? Personally I think the "raid" was overkill. Completely unnecessary. But a plot to assassinate Trump? That's kinda far fetched even for MTG.

 

[jamil]

FBI was 'prepared to use deadly force' in Trump raid

A new court filing unsealed on Tuesday in the Trump classified documents case revealed federal agents were prepared to use 'deadly force' when executing a raid at Mar-a-Lago in 2022.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Was this going to be a "lawful" assassination?

What makes you so sure it was even an assassination attempt?

From the article:
The filing says the Order states 'for example, "Law enforcement officers with the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary..."'

Is that standard protocol for any FBI raid? Seems plausible that it would be. Note that the article talks about policy. That means it's something that applies to certain circumstances, like raiding someone's home. The "when necessary" seems to be an operative term. I'm just asking people to apply a little critical thinking here. I think that believing Joe Biden was trying to have Trump assassinated tastes pretty good to Republican voters. It's probably ******** though.

 

[actaeon277]

Why would it be necessary?
Why not the head of one department calls the head of the Secret Service?
Hey. We have a warrant.
Don't shoot.

 

[jamil]

Why would it be necessary?
Why not the head of one department calls the head of the Secret Service?
Hey. We have a warrant.
Don't shoot.

I think it wouldn't be necessary. Even if Trump were present when they raided, it's unthinkable that anything would come to require the use of deadly force.

But, what happened, is the language was found by Trump's lawyers, and they're making as much use of it as they can.

I understand this link is AP news, and not very reliable when it comes to politics and sides. But, it contains quotes from the FBI and from their policies. This looks like a standard policy to me. The FBI had guns. It's probably a good idea to state under what conditions agents may use deadly force. But the policy is being spun and shopped as clickbait, making claims like they were preparing for deadly force.

FACT FOCUS: Trump distorts use of 'deadly force' language in FBI document for Mar-a-Lago search

Trump pointed to standard language used in an FBI document unsealed Tuesday to baselessly claim the Biden administration wanted to kill him during a search for documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022.

apnews.com

Idunno. Maybe some INGO LEO's might have some insight they can share about how common the practice is for any law enforcment agency to have such policies stated in an order to raid someone's home.

 

[Ingomike]

What makes you so sure it was even an assassination attempt?

Not “sure” but as much illegal maneuvering as the deep state has been proven to have done to get Trump and undermine his administration and campaigns makes it highly plausible…

 

[DadSmith]

I think it wouldn't be necessary. Even if Trump were present when they raided, it's unthinkable that anything would come to require the use of deadly force.

But, what happened, is the language was found by Trump's lawyers, and they're making as much use of it as they can.

I understand this link is AP news, and not very reliable when it comes to politics and sides. But, it contains quotes from the FBI and from their policies. This looks like a standard policy to me. The FBI had guns. It's probably a good idea to state under what conditions agents may use deadly force. But the policy is being spun and shopped as clickbait, making claims like they were preparing for deadly force.

FACT FOCUS: Trump distorts use of 'deadly force' language in FBI document for Mar-a-Lago search

Trump pointed to standard language used in an FBI document unsealed Tuesday to baselessly claim the Biden administration wanted to kill him during a search for documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022.

apnews.com

Idunno. Maybe some INGO LEO's might have some insight they can share about how common the practice is for any law enforcment agency to have such policies stated in an order to raid someone's home.

Policy for a former president of the United States?
That should be some advanced Policy making.
Who has a Policy on using deadly force on a former president? Who thinks about using deadly force on a main contender for president?

 

[jamil]

Policy for a former president of the United States?
That should be some advanced Policy making.
Who has a Policy on using deadly force on a former president? Who thinks about using deadly force on a main contender for president?

Do they even have policy that covers that? I don't know. I'm not in that world.

 

[DadSmith]

Do they even have policy that covers that? I don't know. I'm not in that world.

That's what I'm thinking.
This is something totally out of normal.
This isn't going to an Airport executive and shooting him down at 0500.
This is a former president of the United States withsecret service protection, and he's running for president.
The democrats have set a dangerous precedent for the future of this country.

 

[jamil]

That's what I'm thinking.
This is something totally out of normal.
This isn't going to an Airport executive and shooting him down at 0500.
This is a former president of the United States withsecret service protection, and he's running for president.
The democrats have set a dangerous precedent for the future of this country.

Is it a precedent? I'm happy to believe that Democrats are capable of the most vile behavior, but I'm not inclined to trust everything right wing media claim either.

The FBI's side of it is:

“The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”

Now, either it's standard protocol or it isn't. I don't know enough about FBI policy to say either way. I suspect though, that it's easy enough for right wing media to examine the statement and say, nuh uh. The only thing I see in their statement that doesn't pass the smell test is the part about, "no departure from the norm." It's a departure from the norm to raid a former US president in the first place. But if they're gonna raid one, I suspect they might use normal procedure.

When you have armed LEO raiding a place, I hope they have SOP that limits their use of force, like the policy. Which is reportedly, "may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person."

That sounds more like a limitation on use of force, than an authorization. But, like I said, the raid was not justified. The courts would have been a better place to resolve disputes between government and the former president.

 

[DadSmith]

Is it a precedent?

Yes it is, and it will be used more, and more against political enemies.

 

[jamil]

Yes it is, and it will be used more, and more against political enemies.

The precedent would be weaponizing the DoJ against political opponents, to raid them in the first place. That's a pretty old trick, but not at the level of POTUS.

But observing a policy that limits force when doing raids is not a recent precedent, if their policy is to have that order on all raids.

But lets be clear that the real precedent here is that they even raided a former president for something that is typically resolved in courts. I think claiming that a policy that presumably attaches to all raids, which actually limits use of force, amounts to an attempted assassination, is pretty far out there. Without better evidence, it's a wild claim. But some on INGO view that e-word as evil.

 

[Route 45]

 

[actaeon277]

Funny how she's not having any public get togethers anymore.
I guess the last few had her getting yelled at.

 

[Magyars]