I don't understand the distinction you're making.
Look at the picture. The collapse of tower punched through the parts it hit like swiss cheese. It's like if you blasted through a door with a shotgun. You wouldn't say the door stood up.
WTC 6 suffered immediate catastrophic damage.
Have you seen this?
There's a couple of issues with this
WTC 7 did not fall during the collapse. Not even NIST makes that argument. So this is a strawman. WTC 7 fell hours later
Unlike WTC7, WTC 6 did suffer immediate catastrophic damage. Your image only shows a corner of the building.
The overhead view shows there was indeed a hole punched straight through.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_World_Trade_Center#/media/File%3A6-wtc-photo.jpg
Here's an overhead showing the relationship of the buildings
He's donated to Republicans for years. Where else he going to go?
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2601N9/
Blackstone Group Inc Chief Executive Stephen Schwarzman has spent more than $27 million so far this year backing U.S. politicians, including President Donald Trump, making him Wall Street's largest campaign contributor, according to a Reuters review of regulatory filings.
A. The FBI knew Trump was not there.
B. The Secret Service facilitated the search.
So why would violence arise??
They were authorized to use lethal force if Trump showed up.
They are authorized to use lethal force because they are federal special agents. They are given a gun as part of their job.
https://www.specialagents.org/what-is-a-1811-special-agent
They are limited in their use of force.
Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice 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.
They are also trained in de-escalation techniques. The authorization to use force is severely limited. It seems to me that the policy is put in the operation plan as a reminder of those limits.
There's no requirement for law enforcement to be disarmed around a former president. You can find plenty of pictures of cops with guns right near Trump.
There's no evidence. I have seen that the Secret Service had any problem with how this was done at Mar-A-Lago
My understanding is those rules are different if the person they are protecting is not present.
More importantly there is no evidence I'm aware of that the Secret Service had issues with this search.
Yes. They did. He was in NY
They had a plan for what happened if he comes back. It's only a 3 hr flight.
Mar a Lago is not the White House.
Trump was not there
I stopped when he said Julie Kelly is a great reporter who got her hands on the ops plan.
Well, so did i. That's the PDF I reference above. It was released to the public. Not too hard to find. My point is we can check what she is saying. We also have access to the same document she does. I mentioned in some of my other comments there a Jan 6 defense lawyer who is very familiar with federal operations plans who's fighting with DB and JK over this.
Here's a pertinent tweet
FBI Agents -- and all federal 1811 "special agents" of all agencies -- walk out of their Academy with "permission" to use lethal force.
That's why they are given guns as part of their standard equipment. It is 24/7/365. They are considered "on duty" at all times, and at all times have the authority to enforce the law and intervene in any ongoing criminal activity they observe.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1793704809838862723?t=Ey0YTqYhPyj3TDI5ZjsYNw&s=19
Well, closing arguments are super important. They are next week.
Does Sperry have a source?
Because I read the document from the 9/11 families who are suing the Saudi Arabian government, where all this info is coming from.
That document said the FBI had an shorter version of the video of first, but later the UK government seized a longer version of the video and that changed the context and the meaning.
What is the "spin." Who is spinning it?
As for why are we hearing about this now. This is from a guy who is very familiar with DOJ operations plans. It came out because it was in a court document.
Question: If lethal force guidance for MAL raid is so standard and NBFD—why are we just learning of it now?
Because the Op Plan was in the discovery sent to Trump’s defense and Trump’s defense made use of it in the argument for selective prosecution.
Not complicated.
Trial hasn't concluded
you have a point, but it seems weird that would authorize lethal force in such a scenario.
The authorization to use Force in the FBI or in any other federal agency where they give you a club to do your job is about the LIMITS on when you are authorized to use deadly force.
It basically the lawyers in the FBi reminding the guys going out into the field with the guns you can only use these if there is an immenient threat of harm.
Trump had two lawyers at Mar a Lago during the search. There were no complaints of violence at the time.
He was not there. He was in NY.
Who would be provoked?
Trump he was in NYC
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?
Trump was not at Mar a Lago and the FBI knew this.
So no bingo.
No. like I said I haven't heard his name in a while. Forgot he existed.
she's really sauceless.
very hard to look up what she is saying.
OK I found the document. It's an exhibit tied to Jack Smith's motion GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO DONALD J. TRUMP'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT BASED ON PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
it's exhibit 2 at the end. And it's not the whole transcript. You don't know why he is front of the grand jury. it starts on page 13 then jumps to page 41.
So it's probably discussed elsewhere https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/d91bdc599b5ce490/bfd275aa-full.pdf
Yeah, Smith is responding to an ealier motion from Trump
Trump first focuses on an exchange in the grand jury between a prosecutor and Trump's then- lawyer, who testified as a custodian of records to describe Trump's compliance with the subpoena for documents with classification markings. The prosecutor explained to the attorney that "we are not seeking today to elicit from you privileged information, ” and the attorney claimed privilege numerous times over the course of the 245- page grand jury transcript. **Because the attorney was offered as a records custodian, the Government could inquire into the nature and adequacy of any search for responsive documents. **Those topics were "not off limits just because an attorney play[ ed] a role, ” and Trump could not “ throw the veil of privilege over details of how files were searched, and by whom, through the expedient of involving a lawyer in the process. "
So I'm guessing he was there as a fact witness into how the search for documents responsive to the subpoena was conducted.
by Jerome R. Corsi
damn, haven't hear this name in a while.
were willing to put people just like you in a potential firefight with Secret Service
How was this a potential firefight? The Secret Service were notified the FBI was going do a search of Mar a Lago that day
Both the FBI and the Secret Service basically have the same Use of Force standard.
Secret Service https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf
Unless further restricted by DHS Component policy, DHS LEOs are permitted to use force to control subjects in the course of their official duties as authorized by law, and in defense of themselves and others. In doing so, a LEO shall use only the force that is objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him or her at the time force is applied.
FBI https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force
Law enforcement officers and correctional officers of the Department of Justice 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.
Both are trained in de-escalation tactics.
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.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1793382800558817776
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.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1793366127168635154
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.
The FBI language is about limits.
This doc has the posts they are complaining about.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.581.1_1.pdf