The FBI was authorized to kill President Trump

[West]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

This is not remotely the story. The level of misinformation has crossed over into a lie. 

Read your article. The FBI agents were actually prohibited from using force--unless they were attacked, at which point they were permitted self defense. 

Surely you don't think that an ex-president is free to kill agents and they should be prohibited self defense? Surely, you're not THAT deep in the cult?

Of course Trump will lie about it, but you should do better.

Look here jackass. 

The fact of the matter is this raid was pathetic for a democracy and even more pathetic that they authorized use of lethal force against a president.

[User]

48 minutes ago, West said:

The fact of the matter is this raid was pathetic for a democracy and even more pathetic that they authorized use of lethal force against a president.

There was nothing specific about use of force against Trump. It was a standard SOP for all FBI warrant operations. 

[West]

13 minutes ago, User said:

There was nothing specific about use of force against Trump. It was a standard SOP for all FBI warrant operations. 

The cnn spin is pathetic. Imagine if Trumps fbi raided Obama with a license to kill

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Legato said:

When my logic gets ill I give it some honey and lemon and tell it to get plenty of rest.

^That is the ILLOGICAL TROLL.

[User]

1 hour ago, West said:

The cnn spin is pathetic. Imagine if Trumps fbi raided Obama with a license to kill

They are federal law enforcement agents sworn in as capable of killing people 24/7/365 in the enforcement of laws. It has nothing to do with who, what, when, where, or why. 

If they go to their family Christmas dinner, they can be armed and able to enforce the law with deadly force if needed.  

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, West said:

Look here jackass. 

The fact of the matter is this raid was pathetic for a democracy and even more pathetic that they authorized use of lethal force against a president.

It's Trump's lawyers (presumably at his command) that are claiming full immunity for ANY crimes while POTUS, so Biden ordering that would be completely consistent with Trump's claims. What goes around, comes around. LMAO

Fortunately for Trump, no one else believes that BULLSHIT. 

And BTW, Trump is NO LONGER POTUS. Now he is a potential VICTIM of his own grandiose authoritarian FANTASIES. LMAO

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, User said:

There is always a need. It is basic SOP. If the FBI are going somewhere to effect a warrant, they operate from a standard SOP. Just because there are secret service there doesn't change this fact, and I am not even sure how many were there because Trump was not there at the time anyhow. 

If some staffer jumped on an FBI agent with a kitchen knife, they have use of force procedures as a matter of SOP. They don't just show up and presume that this time is the magical time where nothing could ever possibly go wrong. 

 

No. The scene was secured by another agency. All this did was make blue on blue violence possible. And there was nothing standard about the raid. It was a political stunt.

[Nationalist]

15 hours ago, User said:

Yeah, they had a warrant and executed that warrant. None of that was any kind of attempt to kill or shoot Trump or as you claimed "ordering a hit"

Give me a break. That is nonsense. 

No one was authorized to murder anyone, let alone a political leader or Trump. 

 

While this is true, do you not think that raid was over the top and designed to portray it as a raid on a terrorist? The Libbies have done this on several occasions and when Trump is elected POTUS, I do hope he turns the tables on the cheating little fcks.

Edited May 26 by Nationalist

[West]

10 hours ago, User said:

They are federal law enforcement agents sworn in as capable of killing people 24/7/365 in the enforcement of laws. It has nothing to do with who, what, when, where, or why. 

If they go to their family Christmas dinner, they can be armed and able to enforce the law with deadly force if needed.  

So why put it in an affidavit

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

It's Trump's lawyers (presumably at his command) that are claiming full immunity for ANY crimes while POTUS, so Biden ordering that would be completely consistent with Trump's claims. What goes around, comes around. LMAO

Fortunately for Trump, no one else believes that BULLSHIT. 

And BTW, Trump is NO LONGER POTUS. Now he is a potential VICTIM of his own grandiose authoritarian FANTASIES. LMAO

Garland and Jack Smith would be in trouble tho

[User]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

While this is true, do you not think that raid was over the top and designed to portray it as a raid on a terrorist? The Libbies have done this on several occasions and when Trump is elected POTUS, I do hope he turns the tables on the cheating little fcks.

These are very separate and distinct points. 

I do not agree with the execution of the search warrant, I do not think it was to portray him as a terrorist - it was just a search warrant. 

None of this has anything to do with basic SOP for FBI operations. 

3 minutes ago, West said:

So why put it in an affidavit

I already explained this, use of force SOP in the execution plan for any warrant is the same. There was nothing special here with Trump. 

[User]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. The scene was secured by another agency. All this did was make blue on blue violence possible. And there was nothing standard about the raid. It was a political stunt.

No, the scene was not "secured" by another agency. The FBI was there to execute a search warrant; the other agency was not. This did nothing to make blue-on-blue violence possible. 

The SOP for the execution of a search warrant was standard. They put that language into all their executions. 

This is just a silly political stunt of phony outrage being pushed on the right now. 

[West]

11 minutes ago, User said:

These are very separate and distinct points. 

I do not agree with the execution of the search warrant, I do not think it was to portray him as a terrorist - it was just a search warrant. 

None of this has anything to do with basic SOP for FBI operations. 

I already explained this, use of force SOP in the execution plan for any warrant is the same. There was nothing special here with Trump. 

Any commentary from law enforcement I've seen says that was totally unnecessary. Given the Democrats have shown mafia type intimidation tactics in the past there's no reason to believe any different here

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, West said:

Any commentary from law enforcement I've seen says that was totally unnecessary. Given the Democrats have shown mafia type intimidation tactics in the past there's no reason to believe any different here

I don't have one seconds hesitation believing that the democrats and their supporters would use the FBI to intimidate or to politically cast someone in a poor light. Nor do I find the idea of the FBI cooperating with that terribly difficult to swallow.

And I will admit this is not one of those areas where I've researched enough to be able to slam my fist on the table and Demand that I'm right.

But from what I understand it just seems like a search warrant. He didn't turn over the documents, they believed he did not turn over the documents and was hiding documents, and they went in and searched his place and took back the documents.

As everyone knows I'm the first to laugh at the dems when they do something stupid or call most of their legal escapades a witch hunt, but I'm just not feeling this one.

I think trump kept the documents, they knew he had the documents, and they executed a search warrant and there was nothing particularly different about this search warrant than any other search warrant that they execute.

Edited May 26 by CdnFox

[robosmith]

39 minutes ago, West said:

So why put it in an affidavit

Garland and Jack Smith would be in trouble tho

Not if Biden pardons them like Trump plans to pardon HIS GOONS. LMAO

[robosmith]

26 minutes ago, West said:

Any commentary from law enforcement I've seen says that was totally unnecessary. Given the Democrats have shown mafia type intimidation tactics in the past there's no reason to believe any different here

Trump wasn't even AT Mar-a-Lago and the FBI specifically made sure of that in ADVANCE. 

Now you have a "reason to believe any different here," whether you understand that or not.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, User said:

These are very separate and distinct points. 

I do not agree with the execution of the search warrant, I do not think it was to portray him as a terrorist - it was just a search warrant. 

It was executed like they were going to arrest the Boston Bombers.

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, User said:

No, the scene was not "secured" by another agency. The FBI was there to execute a search warrant; the other agency was not. This did nothing to make blue-on-blue violence possible. 

The SOP for the execution of a search warrant was standard. They put that language into all their executions. 

This is just a silly political stunt of phony outrage being pushed on the right now. 

Yes, the scene was secured by Secret Service. Do younreally think the Secret Service didnt have a pretty firm grasp of what was going on there?

There was no need to read in a use of force. What was the Secret Service going to do? Get in a shoot out with the FBI? Of course not. It was not responsible to suggest the use of force might be necessary.

It is also wrong to think they were trying to kill Trump. He wasn't there and I guarantee you they knew that.

[User]

17 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes, the scene was secured by Secret Service. Do younreally think the Secret Service didnt have a pretty firm grasp of what was going on there?

The Secret Service is there for the protection of the President, not the protection of the search warrant. These agencies have entirely different purposes and meanings behind what they are securing. 

18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

There was no need to read in a use of force. What was the Secret Service going to do? Get in a shoot out with the FBI? Of course not. It was not responsible to suggest the use of force might be necessary.

Yes, there is ALWAYS a need to have use of force in the SOP, because you can't know the future and pretend like it always going to be Unicorns and Rainbows. 

Where was it "suggested" the use of force might be necessary? It was their standard SOP paperwork. 

 

[West]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Trump wasn't even AT Mar-a-Lago and the FBI specifically made sure of that in ADVANCE. 

Now you have a "reason to believe any different here," whether you understand that or not.

The issue is with the politically appointed lunatic who authorized a raid with a use of force clause on a political opponents. This is not something you'd expect in a functioning democratic society 

Edited May 26 by West

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, User said:

The Secret Service is there for the protection of the President, not the protection of the search warrant. These agencies have entirely different purposes and meanings behind what they are securing. 

Yes, there is ALWAYS a need to have use of force in the SOP, because you can't know the future and pretend like it always going to be Unicorns and Rainbows. 

Where was it "suggested" the use of force might be necessary? It was their standard SOP paperwork. 

 

No. There is no SOP for raiding a Presidential residence. The SOP is for raiding a drug house or an office building. It is not SOP for walking into a home where the only people with weapons are other officers and they know you are coming.

Edited May 26 by gatomontes99

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

The issue is with the politically appointed lunatic who authorized a raid with a use of force clause on a political opponents. This is not something you'd expect in a functioning democratic society 

No, "not something YOU'D EXPECT," because you're IGNORANT about our functioning democratic society.

Maybe you should write a letter to the Director of the FBI and explain to him how you know better than he, about the standard operating procedures he should follow. Good luck with that. LMAO

Edited May 26 by robosmith

[robosmith]

55 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. There is no SOP for raiding a Presidential residence. The SOP is for raiding a drug house or an office building. It is not SOP for walking into a home where the only people with weapons are other officers and they know you are coming.

Thanks for demonstrating your belief that a former POTUS is above the law. LMAO

The FACT is, Trump keeps demonstrating he's NOT ABOVE inciting his GOONS into violence against LEO.

Either that, or he is TOO STUPID to see what happens after he opens his YAP.

Of course Prosecutor Smith, and everyone with a brain, knows that he poses a danger to LEO, which is the BASIS of the gag order sought.

[gatomontes99]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for demonstrating your belief that a former POTUS is above the law. LMAO

The FACT is, Trump keeps demonstrating he's NOT ABOVE inciting his GOONS into violence against LEO.

Either that, or he is TOO STUPID to see what happens after he opens his YAP.

Of course Prosecutor Smith, and everyone with a brain, knows that he poses a danger to LEO, which is the BASIS of the gag order sought.

Lmao..ok.

[robosmith]

38 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lmao..ok.

Thanks for doubling down on your disdain for LEO with your belief that inciting violence against them is funny. 🤮

[gatomontes99]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for doubling down on your disdain for LEO with your belief that inciting violence against them is funny. 🤮

You really should reread my posts. Lmao.