Oh yes, because they're ALWAYS honest about who started what. The federal government has never instigated an engagement with people and killed innocents while gaslighting that it was the other side's fault.
I knew you'd keep up this narrative, even with Dan Bongino shitting on your narrative -- and Dan has actual experience, whereas you have fuck and all.
Name does not check out....but who's kidding who, after all?
Name checks out pretty damn well. There was after all no violence during this search. No threats or hints of violence. Except two years later. In people's imaginations.
even with Dan Bongino shitting on your narrative -- and Dan has actual experience, whereas you have fuck and all.
Actually a lot of my POV on this is from Shipwreckedcrew on Twitter who is currently in a twitterfight with Dan.
@shipwreckedcrew
22 years as fed. prosecutor;
Def. Attorney for 55+ Jan 6 Defs.
An ops plan doesn’t “authorize” any use of force that otherwise would not have been authorized.
Correct. That authority to use lethal force comes with the training, the oath, and the credentials. The Ops Plan is just written “legalese” that makes FBI General Counsel sleep better at night. Nothing depends on it being there or what exactly it says. It’s not necessary but it’s always included.
This issues is about boilerplate info that is at the beginning of every Ops Plan for a search warrant.
They aren’t created from scratch. The agent takes a recent one and makes changes where necessary re case, location, date, time, etc. But the “use of force” language never changes. It’s in the same place from the previous version used for an earlier search.
This language was not put there because it was MAL. Some modifications on how to coordinate with USSS were included - part of the specifics of the case. But some form of this language is used by every federal agency, not just the FBI.
It's not easy to follow their twitterfight because they are quote tweeted.
My whole position on this is FBI like Secret Service like the police like soldiers on base are not authorized to use deadly force except in very rare cases.
Let’s assume that Trump and his family were there that day, how hard would it have been for the FBI to just open up fire and later claim they were fired upon first? Point being, there wouldn’t need to be someone to “start it” if they just claimed there was.
Even if we could later prove they lied it would be too late at that point.
You realize we're in the land of fantasy now. We are imagining some super violent event. About something that already happened with not only no violence, but without even the hint of violence.
If we are going deep into the world of imagination, what's to prevent the Secret Service from opening fire on Trump or soldiers or any other government employee who is given a gun?
Let’s assume that Trump and his family were there that day, how hard would it have been for the FBI to just open up fire and later claim they were fired upon first?
Like if you think this was a real possible, thing, how would the standard FBI policy prevent this? You're describing straight up criminal activity. What you are describing is absolutely NOT ALLOWED under the standard FBI policy.
What you're describing violates multiple parts of the FBI policy on deadly force which IS ALL ABOUT THE LIMITS on the FBI.
Specifically it would violate the duty of an FBI agent to intervene if another FBI agent did as you said
1-16.400 - AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO INTERVENE
Officers will be trained in, and must recognize and act upon, the affirmative duty to intervene to prevent or stop, as appropriate, any officer from engaging in excessive force or any other use of force that violates the Constitution, other federal laws, or Department policies on the reasonable use of force.
It would also violate this section
This policy is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officer or employees, or any other person.
Answer this question.
With whom would they have started a firefight? How would it started.
Oh yes, because they're ALWAYS honest about who started what. The federal government has never instigated an engagement with people and killed innocents while gaslighting that it was the other side's fault.
I knew you'd keep up this narrative, even with Dan Bongino shitting on your narrative -- and Dan has actual experience, whereas you have fuck and all.
Name does not check out....but who's kidding who, after all?
Name checks out pretty damn well. There was after all no violence during this search. No threats or hints of violence. Except two years later. In people's imaginations.
Actually a lot of my POV on this is from Shipwreckedcrew on Twitter who is currently in a twitterfight with Dan.
@shipwreckedcrew 22 years as fed. prosecutor; Def. Attorney for 55+ Jan 6 Defs.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1793382800558817776
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1793366127168635154
It's not easy to follow their twitterfight because they are quote tweeted.
My whole position on this is FBI like Secret Service like the police like soldiers on base are not authorized to use deadly force except in very rare cases.
The FBI language is about limits.
Sure. The people who love "plausible deniability" have plausible deniability.
The whole point is being able to see through it, and we see through it.
Let’s assume that Trump and his family were there that day, how hard would it have been for the FBI to just open up fire and later claim they were fired upon first? Point being, there wouldn’t need to be someone to “start it” if they just claimed there was.
Even if we could later prove they lied it would be too late at that point.
You realize we're in the land of fantasy now. We are imagining some super violent event. About something that already happened with not only no violence, but without even the hint of violence.
If we are going deep into the world of imagination, what's to prevent the Secret Service from opening fire on Trump or soldiers or any other government employee who is given a gun?
Like if you think this was a real possible, thing, how would the standard FBI policy prevent this? You're describing straight up criminal activity. What you are describing is absolutely NOT ALLOWED under the standard FBI policy.
Have you read it? https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force
What you're describing violates multiple parts of the FBI policy on deadly force which IS ALL ABOUT THE LIMITS on the FBI.
Specifically it would violate the duty of an FBI agent to intervene if another FBI agent did as you said
It would also violate this section
We live under a government that doesn’t follow the rules though.
This event already happened. There was no violence. There was no threat of violence. No one has complained of violence.
What are we doing here?
If William (Bill) Cooper were still alive he could answer that for you.