FBI Authorized Use of Deadly Force During Mar-a-Lago Raid

Valletta said:

I didn't say they were "targeting" Trump or the Supreme Court Justices, they definitely broke the law in both cases. The violations of law made violence more probable and sent a message, a fascist message they are sending to all who oppose their tyranny.

Click to expand...

What law exactly was violated?

Fantine said:

I guess Mr. Trump's very recent history of inciting violence made precautions advisable.

Click to expand...

Source or trust me bro? From what I read during the Jan 6 he specifically called the protestors to be peaceful and respect the officers. Or are there others? I want one incident that he directly instructed people to violence. I would like a direct source not some analyst interpretation. And I don't even like Trump. But I dislike slander more.

Valletta said:

I didn't say they were "targeting" Trump or the Supreme Court Justices, they definitely broke the law in both cases. The violations of law made violence more probable and sent a message, a fascist message they are sending to all who oppose their tyranny.

Click to expand...

Then what is the purpose of this thread if not to imply that Biden's DOJ hoped to meet resistance in order to be able to use lethal force resulting in harm to Trump or his family?

No laws were broken. They had a warrant. If the warrant wasn't legal that would have been the first thing presented to the judge to get the case dismissed and Cannon would likely be more than willing to comply.

JosephZ said:

Nope. Standard procedure.

Click to expand...

To look for documents that Trump had agreed to let them have access to? Who were they expecting resistance from, the Secret Service?

BPPLEE said:

To look for documents that Trump had agreed to let them have access to? Who were they expecting resistance from, the Secret Service?

Click to expand...

Have you read the document in question? It was simply reminding them of what the DoJ policy was on the use of force. Which is standard for any operation, even a routine one.

BPPLEE said:

To look for documents that Trump had agreed to let them have access to?

Click to expand...

I don't think that moving documents around without the knowledge of your own attorneys who swore there were no such documents counts as "agreeing to access".

From what I read from the threads here there is indeed a 2-tiered justice system but it is in the attitudes of people.

Those who are against Trump will try and pin the use of force as standard procedures while the Trump supporters as injustice. But based on my perception those who hated Trump are also some of the most vocal proponent of hating the police and those who support Trump are usually vocal about loving the police. Yes, yes I know there is a difference between FBI and local police but they are both enforcement officers. Same spirit.

It is fine if they go against their believes as long as the person they dislike get the short end of the stick. At least that's the vibe I'm getting here. Some will say Jan 6 is the worst thing to happen to American democracy and Trump is the mastermind. Some will say the BLM takin over cities is the worst thing to happen to American sovereignty. Each side fail to see the similarities in both. (I await your "you're wrong" response)

But from what I'm reading and how I perceived the whole situation, for me at least Trump is indeed getting scrutinized more than the standard politician. When Hillary got caught with email in a personal server there was never this big of an investigation. Neither is there any concerted effort by enforcement to dig up more "wrong" doings. Yes there is a somewhat unfair treatment for Trump. And I'm a guy that doesn't fancy Mr. Donald yet feel somewhat sympathetic for what he is going through.

People tend to forget that in the pursuit of justice one must remain fair else it makes a martyr of those you indict. A just cause it often derailed by personal vindictiveness. This goes for both sides.

Valletta said:

Just like with the border, the mainstream press has done all they can to cover-up the truth. The two-tiered justice system does not just affect Trump, but it affects anyone who stands up to the establishment. All one had to do is take a look at, let's contrast the most recent case, the sentencing of someone for the same crime, who stands with radical Democrats as to someone who opposes them:

Pro-Hamas Rioter Gets Community Service After Punching Female U.S. Capitol Police Officer In DC

More evidence of our justice system slanting left under President Joe Biden.

www.tampafp.com

Click to expand...

There is a very large disparity between treatment of similar crimes in America that I'm not going to dispute. I have seen parents hauled up and labelled domestic terrorists for going against the state education board. Yet people who chanted terroristic slogans get nothing. American enforcement of justice is broken and made further broken by "progressive" lawmakers. More detrimental crimes are getting less severe punishments will benign crimes are getting more severe punishments.

But I chalk it up to State to States laws. But that doesn't make it any less mind bending to read about.

BPPLEE said:

To look for documents that Trump had agreed to let them have access to? Who were they expecting resistance from, the Secret Service?

Click to expand...

After months of unsuccessful attempts to obtain the records, and eventually getting a very incomplete inventory.

With Mr. Trump, talk is cheap and rarely followed by cooperation.

They had to bring a crew because there were so many boxes unaccounted for, and their locations were unknown.

He was treated like any other private citizen.

IceJad said:

There is a very large disparity between treatment of similar crimes in America that I'm not going to dispute.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we've all heard claims like that. But, from what I can tell, most of them tend to be exaggerated beyond credibility.

With that in mind...

IceJad said:

I have seen parents hauled up and labelled domestic terrorists for going against the state education board.

Click to expand...

You've personally seen this happen? Maybe you could detail where and when this occurred, so we can verify it. From what I know, the FBI generally only labels someone or some organization as a "domestic terrorist" when there are credible threats or intimidations, not for merely "going against the state education board." And, keeping in mind, that label is just that, a label. It isn't a charge someone can be arrested for.

But, feel free to prove otherwise. Show us where this happened, and what the specific circumstances were.

IceJad said:

Yet people who chanted terroristic slogans get nothing.

Click to expand...

Simply chanting something isn't a crime. Not even when chanting a "terroristic slogan."

IceJad said:

American enforcement of justice is broken and made further broken by "progressive" lawmakers. More detrimental crimes are getting less severe punishments will benign crimes are getting more severe punishments.

Click to expand...

There's a lot that goes into what punishment is leveled against specific crimes, and much of that has to do with jurisdictions, laws, and the specific circumstances surrounding the events. Broad statements like this aren't very productive, and nothing substantive can be discussed without details.

IceJad said:

But I chalk it up to State to States laws. But that doesn't make it any less mind bending to read about.

Click to expand...

Sure. But what bends one mind may not bend every mind. Your mileage may vary.

For example, forcing your way into the US Capitol to threaten violence against government officials simply for doing their sworn duty isn't the same as rioting in the street at a demonstration elsewhere. The circumstances are different, and the laws applied would also differ. And each and every individual's actions may vary, resulting in different outcomes for different defendants.

So comparisons are flawed, at best, more often than not.

-- A2SG, if you want to discuss specific instances to compare them, then you'll need the specific details of each case.....

Valletta said:

I didn't say they were "targeting" Trump or the Supreme Court Justices, they definitely broke the law in both cases. The violations of law made violence more probable and sent a message, a fascist message they are sending to all who oppose their tyranny.

Click to expand...

That page was standard FBI procedure noting the restrictions that generally prohibit the use of deadly force. It is issued before *ALL* such searches. It has nothing to do with the FBI being some sort of assassination squad. Now what disinformation operative fed this nonsense into the media sphere?

Hans Blaster said:

Now what disinformation operative fed this nonsense into the media sphere?

Click to expand...

Oh, Julie Kelly. That makes sense. She does it all the time. She is either too dumb to understand the documents she reads or she lies blatantly. It isn't the first time this has happened.

A2SG said:

Yeah, we've all heard claims like that. But, from what I can tell, most of them tend to be exaggerated beyond credibility.

With that in mind...


You've personally seen this happen? Maybe you could detail where and when this occurred, so we can verify it. From what I know, the FBI generally only labels someone or some organization as a "domestic terrorist" when there are credible threats or intimidations, not for merely "going against the state education board." And, keeping in mind, that label is just that, a label. It isn't a charge someone can be arrested for.

But, feel free to prove otherwise. Show us where this happened, and what the specific circumstances were.

Click to expand...

Btw the board lost the case.

A2SG said:

Simply chanting something isn't a crime. Not even when chanting a "terroristic slogan."


There's a lot that goes into what punishment is leveled against specific crimes, and much of that has to do with jurisdictions, laws, and the specific circumstances surrounding the events. Broad statements like this aren't very productive, and nothing substantive can be discussed without details.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. You see I don't usually say things that I have not read before somewhere. I may not remember when or exactly where it happens but I do remember it happened before. It takes but a few minutes to lookup.

A2SG said:

Sure. But what bends one mind may not bend every mind. Your mileage may vary.

For example, forcing your way into the US Capitol to threaten violence against government officials simply for doing their sworn duty isn't the same as rioting in the street at a demonstration elsewhere. The circumstances are different, and the laws applied would also differ. And each and every individual's actions may vary, resulting in different outcomes for different defendants.

So comparisons are flawed, at best, more often than not.

-- A2SG, if you want to discuss specific instances to compare them, then you'll need the specific details of each case.....

Click to expand...

If you want to discuss it feel free to open up a thread of your choosing. I prefer to not tangent too far from the OP thread is about. I have seen enough of the US loony bin to know I have enough examples and prove my case.

IceJad said:

Loudoun County assault victim's dad wants apology for being called 'domestic terrorist'

(WJLA) -- The father of a Loudoun County school student who was sexually assaulted inside a bathroom at Stone Bridge High wants an apology for being called a "domestic terrorist," his attorney Bill Stanley said. Caption: Leesburg parent Scott Smith wants answers after two alleged sexual assaults...

wjla.com

Btw the board lost the case.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and I can easily see why.

As I said, this is an example of exaggeration. In this case, the NSBA (National School Boards Administration) used the label "domestic terrorist," not any law enforcement agency. The label wasn't in any way official, actionable, or in fact, meaningful at all. The board has no authority to do anything with that label. For all the enforcement ability the NSBA has, they may as well have called him a "doo-doo head."

IceJad said:

Charges dropped against preacher arrested at pride event; police 'inundated' with complaints

Prosecutors have dropped charges against a Pennsylvanian street preacher after he was arrested while reading from the Bible across from a pride event

www.christianpost.com

Pro-Palestinian protesters light US flag on fire in NYC

There were audible gasps as the Stars and Stripes being held by a pro-Israel counter protestor was set alight and then waved in the air - as bright yellow flames could be seen coming from the flag.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Wrong again.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I was wrong. The first case above was exaggerated, as I said. In the second instance, the preacher wasn't arrested for chanting (which isn't a crime), he was arrested for disorderly conduct (which is). After warnings first, I might add. And further, the charges were withdrawn, so the police came to realize they were in error. And in the third, chanting and even setting fire to a flag aren't illegal, so there was no crime there. It's possible the difference in police actions could be nothing more than the difference between how NYC cops react to situations they see often versus how a suburban PA police force reacts to something they don't often deal with. Different situations, different circumstances, different reactions.

Which is pretty much what I said: "There's a lot that goes into what punishment is leveled against specific crimes, and much of that has to do with jurisdictions, laws, and the specific circumstances surrounding the events."

IceJad said:

You see I don't usually say things that I have not read before somewhere. I may not remember when or exactly where it happens but I do remember it happened before. It takes but a few minutes to lookup.

Click to expand...

Cool, it's appreciated. It might be helpful to cite such examples when making claims, though, so they don't sound like stuff that's just made up, or derived from too many hours in front of Fox News.

IceJad said:

If you want to discuss it feel free to open up a thread of your choosing.

Click to expand...

Not necessary. The point has been made, and it's not really worth much more discussion, I'd say.

IceJad said:

I prefer to not tangent too far from the OP thread is about. I have seen enough of the US loony bin to know I have enough examples and prove my case.

Click to expand...

Except you haven't. I took your comments to be exaggerated, and based on your examples, that's what they were.

Same as Donald's claim of being in imminent danger from the FBI.

-- A2SG, see, I can bring it back on topic.....super easy, barely an inconvenience....

A2SG said:

Yeah, and I can easily see why.

As I said, this is an example of exaggeration. In this case, the NSBA (National School Boards Administration) used the label "domestic terrorist," not any law enforcement agency. The label wasn't in any way official, actionable, or in fact, meaningful at all. The board has no authority to do anything with that label. For all the enforcement ability the NSBA has, they may as well have called him a "doo-doo head."

Click to expand...

Yes an exaggeration until the NSBA has to apologized and retract the letter. It was actionable because there was a directive sent out to review strategies in dealing with the parents. I know what you want to play - the semantics game. Words can be downplayed and reinterpreted not intentions. A rose is a rose by any other name as the saying goes. The letter sent to the president clear equate actions of the parents as terroristic
in nature.

"As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."​

A2SG said:

I'm not sure how I was wrong. The first case above was exaggerated, as I said. In the second instance, the preacher wasn't arrested for chanting (which isn't a crime), he was arrested for disorderly conduct (which is). After warnings first, I might add. And further, the charges were withdrawn, so the police came to realize they were in error. And in the third, chanting and even setting fire to a flag aren't illegal, so there was no crime there. It's possible the difference in police actions could be nothing more than the difference between how NYC cops react to situations they see often versus how a suburban PA police force reacts to something they don't often deal with. Different situations, different circumstances, different reactions.

Which is pretty much what I said: "There's a lot that goes into what punishment is leveled against specific crimes, and much of that has to do with jurisdictions, laws, and the specific circumstances surrounding the events."

Click to expand...

This is where your assessment is wrong you say disorderly conduct which he didn't do. He was by the US constitution free to continue speaking only that the officer took umbrage to it under the pretext of disrupting an event.


Nothing in the video suggested he did anything that's "disorderly". You just took the word of the officer and ran with it. No one after seeing that video will say he was being disorderly in public spaces. His message might not be appreciated for the event but him being there on the other side of the road is 100% fine.

While the pro-palestinian protest did more in being disorderly. Flags was burn and police was pushed. Under any logical assessment of the 2 situation of protest you can clearly see a disparity in enforcement.

A2SG said:

Cool, it's appreciated. It might be helpful to cite such examples when making claims, though, so they don't sound like stuff that's just made up, or derived from too many hours in front of Fox News.


Not necessary. The point has been made, and it's not really worth much more discussion, I'd say.


Except you haven't. I took your comments to be exaggerated, and based on your examples, that's what they were.

Same as Donald's claim of being in imminent danger from the FBI.

-- A2SG, see, I can bring it back on topic.....super easy, barely an inconvenience....

Click to expand...

Your prerogative, but that is not going to hide the unequal enforcement of laws in the US. I have seen so call "liberal" states minimizing thief to a misdemeanor for below $900 items stolen. Troves of stores shutdown due to thief in NYC alone. Roving gangs of thieves break into shops and just take anything they wanted so long the limit is not reached. DA refusing to prosecute. I call an ace and ace. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

Face it your enforcement is BROKEN and so are your LAWS. I have only see such chaos in countries with non-functioning governments. It's a delusion to believe there is no disparity of law enforcement in the US.

IceJad said:

Yes an exaggeration until the NSBA has to apologized and retract the letter.

Click to expand...

Yup. When they recognized they'd overreacted. But the label, such as it was, still carried no weight whatsoever.

IceJad said:

It was actionable because there was a directive sent out to review strategies in dealing with the parents.

Click to expand...

I read that as they tried to figure out if there was any action that could be taken. They found out there was none.

IceJad said:

I know what you want to play - the semantics game.

Click to expand...

Not really. I'm just showing how your initial characterization of the event exaggerated it's significance, which is what I figured it was. The details confirmed my guess.

IceJad said:

Words can be downplayed and reinterpreted not intentions. A rose is a rose by any other name as the saying goes. The letter sent to the president clear equate actions of the parents as terroristic in nature.

Click to expand...

In the minds of people with no power whatsoever to do anything about it.

IceJad said:

"As these acts of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."​

Click to expand...

Yup, that's what they seemed to think. They found out they were wrong.

IceJad said:

This is where your assessment is wrong you say disorderly conduct which he didn't do.

Click to expand...

I didn't say he did that, the local police did when they charged him with that. The charges were then withdrawn when the police decided they'd overreacted.

IceJad said:

He was by the US constitution free to continue speaking only that the officer took umbrage to it under the pretext of disrupting an event.

Click to expand...

Yup. Which is why the charges were withdrawn.

IceJad said:

Nothing in the video suggested he did anything that's "disorderly". You just took the word of the officer and ran with it.

Click to expand...

I didn't so much run with it, as examine the circumstances as given. I noted the initial charges, and that the charges were withdrawn.

IceJad said:

No one after seeing that video will say he was being disorderly in public spaces.

Click to expand...

Apparently, the police officer thought so. He was subsequently determined to have overreacted, and the charges were withdrawn.

IceJad said:

His message might not be appreciated for the event but him being there on the other side of the road is 100% fine.

While the pro-palestinian protest did more in being disorderly. Flags was burn and police was pushed. Under any logical assessment of the 2 situation of protest you can clearly see a disparity in enforcement.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Different situations, different circumstances, different reactions. A cop who works in NYC and deals with demonstrations on an almost daily basis would react differently to the situation than a suburban PA cop who doesn't would.

As I said.

IceJad said:

Your prerogative, but that is not going to hide the unequal enforcement of laws in the US.

Click to expand...

No one denies that laws are different in different situations and different jurisdictions, so enforcement would, of course, be different. That's why we have trials to determine the punishment, or lack of it, after examining the facts of the case and applying it to the specific laws involved.

IceJad said:

I have see so call "liberal" states minimizing thief to a misdemeanor for below $900 items stolen. Troves of stores shutdown due to thief in NYC alone. Roving gangs of thieves break into shop and just take anything they wanted so long the limit is not reached. DA refusing to prosecute. I call an ace and ace. You're just don't want to acknowledge it.

Click to expand...

Um, I have acknowledged that laws are different in different jurisdictions, and are often applied differently depending on the circumstances. It was right there in my first response.

IceJad said:

Face it your enforcement is BROKEN and so are your LAWS. I have only see such chaos in countries with non-functioning governments. It's a delusion to believe there is no disparity of law enforcement in the US.

Click to expand...

Law enforcement in this country isn't broken, it works. Most of the time, anyway. No one said it was perfect.

Nothing is.

But the examples you've given only show that the concerns you've raised are based on exaggerations, not the reality. None of the proffered examples are anything close to egregious. Granted, I'm sure egregious examples could be found if you search hard enough, but even those wouldn't prove the system is broken. Only that it's not perfect, and we need to work harder to make it work better.

What we don't need, however, are demagogues like Trump who intentionally exaggerate and deliberately lie about these things, purely out of their own self-interest. That doesn't help.

-- A2SG, it all comes back to Donny boy and his perpetual victimhood fundraising machine....

IceJad said:

From what I read from the threads here there is indeed a 2-tiered justice system but it is in the attitudes of people.

Those who are against Trump will try and pin the use of force as standard procedures while the Trump supporters as injustice. But based on my perception those who hated Trump are also some of the most vocal proponent of hating the police and those who support Trump are usually vocal about loving the police. Yes, yes I know there is a difference between FBI and local police but they are both enforcement officers. Same spirit.

It is fine if they go against their believes as long as the person they dislike get the short end of the stick. At least that's the vibe I'm getting here. Some will say Jan 6 is the worst thing to happen to American democracy and Trump is the mastermind. Some will say the BLM takin over cities is the worst thing to happen to American sovereignty. Each side fail to see the similarities in both. (I await your "you're wrong" response)

But from what I'm reading and how I perceived the whole situation, for me at least Trump is indeed getting scrutinized more than the standard politician. When Hillary got caught with email in a personal server there was never this big of an investigation. Neither is there any concerted effort by enforcement to dig up more "wrong" doings. Yes there is a somewhat unfair treatment for Trump. And I'm a guy that doesn't fancy Mr. Donald yet feel somewhat sympathetic for what he is going through.

People tend to forget that in the pursuit of justice one must remain fair else it makes a martyr of those you indict. A just cause it often derailed by personal vindictiveness. This goes for both sides.

Click to expand...

I guess you weren't paying attention to the investigations into Hillary. To start with, let's go before the email investigation to Benghazi. That particular incident was "investigated" seven different times by various groups in Congress, with the last one basically admitted to only occurring to hurt Hillary's chances of being elected. Despite the various investigations, none of them found any evidence of any wrongdoing by Sec. Clinton. For all the claims of Trump being "scrutinized," Trump has not had that many investigations into any single thing he has done -- or even half that many.

Next, the FBI investigation (and that doesn't include anything done by Congress) was re-opened during the 2016 election and there is solid evidence to show that it kept her from beating Trump in the election. In a break of tradition, not only did the FBI reopen the investigation within 60 days of the election (the rule is that investigations into politicians are not done within 60 days of an election), the FBI publicly announced the investigation -- directly causing Clinton to drop 5 points (most of her lead) in the polls. While the FBI ended the investigation roughly a week before the election, the damage had been done even though they said she would not be charged. In the meantime, Trump continued (through his first term) to lead chants at his rallies to "Lock her up" -- and his Attorney Generals both stated that Trump tried to order them to indict Clinton. The AGs didn't because it is likely they could not get an indictment, and even if they could, they did not have the evidence needed for a conviction.

I'll also note that part of the reason Trump's seems to be a "longer investigation" is that Trump intentionally delays. As an example, any ruling against him he automatically appeals as long as he can, trying to delay the process. This is something Trump has always done, even before becoming a politician. Because he delays, and appeals any decision a judge makes that goes against him, it keeps his trials going longer and keeps the stories in the news (particularly as it is reported how his appeals are ruled on).

It is also worth noting, for all the claims of not remaining fair, that the Biden DoJ has brought chargers against a Democratic Senator and a Congressperson, they aren't just going after Republicans and letting Democrats get away with crimes. Instead, you are buying into the narrative that is being pushed by Trump (and right wing media) about how mistreated he is, without seeing the full picture.

SimplyMe said:

I guess you weren't paying attention to the investigations into Hillary. To start with, let's go before the email investigation to Benghazi. That particular incident was "investigated" seven different times by various groups in Congress, with the last one basically admitted to only occurring to hurt Hillary's chances of being elected. Despite the various investigations, none of them found any evidence of any wrongdoing by Sec. Clinton. For all the claims of Trump being "scrutinized," Trump has not had that many investigations into any single thing he has done -- or even half that many.

Click to expand...

I may not be American but that doesn't mean I don't follow what's going on. Firstly they didn't find her not guilty. The FBI clearly said violations had been made. They recommended to not press charges because there is so call "no criminal intent". Let's be honest with that.

This is from AP News reported

"Although the report identified violations, it said investigators had found “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” However, it also made clear that Clinton’s use of the private email had increased the vulnerability of classified information."

SimplyMe said:

Next, the FBI investigation (and that doesn't include anything done by Congress) was re-opened during the 2016 election and there is solid evidence to show that it kept her from beating Trump in the election. In a break of tradition, not only did the FBI reopen the investigation within 60 days of the election (the rule is that investigations into politicians are not done within 60 days of an election), the FBI publicly announced the investigation -- directly causing Clinton to drop 5 points (most of her lead) in the polls. While the FBI ended the investigation roughly a week before the election, the damage had been done even though they said she would not be charged. In the meantime, Trump continued (through his first term) to lead chants at his rallies to "Lock her up" -- and his Attorney Generals both stated that Trump tried to order them to indict Clinton. The AGs didn't because it is likely they could not get an indictment, and even if they could, they did not have the evidence needed for a conviction.

Click to expand...

Secondly the FBI re-open the case based on newly discovered emails not old evidence. While contentious, an election cycle shouldn't stop an investigation if new evidence is found. You see that with Trump as well.

You said it directly caused Hillary dropping 5 points. Which I contend you can't be 100% certain. Because the same argument can be made for the Steele dossier as well. Which let me remind you was play to high heaven's by the leftist MSM. Polling is notoriously notoriously poor in accuracy as with all sampling. But I'll let you have that 5 points drop.

Trump's "Lock her up" comment is no different from Clinton's "Russia collusion". Got everyone investigating ghosts trails.

SimplyMe said:

I'll also note that part of the reason Trump's seems to be a "longer investigation" is that Trump intentionally delays. As an example, any ruling against him he automatically appeals as long as he can, trying to delay the process. This is something Trump has always done, even before becoming a politician. Because he delays, and appeals any decision a judge makes that goes against him, it keeps his trials going longer and keeps the stories in the news (particularly as it is reported how his appeals are ruled on).

Click to expand...

Isn't that the process of the law? He shouldn't appeal? I don't get you. When I'm basing my assessment of Trump's treatment is not by length of litigation. But what kind of litigations were brought upon him and how he is being handled by the authorities and press. I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty of anything. All I'm saying is the he going through is highly unequal in comparison to others in his position.

SimplyMe said:

It is also worth noting, for all the claims of not remaining fair, that the Biden DoJ has brought chargers against a Democratic Senator and a Congressperson, they aren't just going after Republicans and letting Democrats get away with crimes. Instead, you are buying into the narrative that is being pushed by Trump (and right wing media) about how mistreated he is, without seeing the full picture.

Click to expand...

Funny when people don't align with your view, they are automatically buying into a narrative by the right. Would reading only left leaning news improve my views? My intelligence is not worth much I gander. So let me introduce myself.

Hi I'm a Malaysian of Chinese decent. I equally don't like the left and right side of the US political system. I don't like Biden but neither am I a fan of Trump. I read news from all sources from big giant corporations to small independent news sites - left, right and center. I like to make fun of the sitting US president if you don't mind (I have a feeling you might). I have made fun of Trump in quite a number of threads. And I like to rail on extremism I see be it right or left.

Valletta said:

Perhaps most shockingly, the FBI team included a medic to tend to anyone “injured” during the raid. The operations order identified a nearby trauma center with directions how to get there:​

FBI Authorized Use of Deadly Force During Mar-a-Lago Raid

Newly unsealed documents in Special Counsel Jack Smith's espionage case against Donald Trump demonstrate the FBI's plans to use deadly force--even if the former president arrived at the scene.

www.declassified.live

Not a two-tiered system of justice?

Click to expand...

Some folk get killed in America in raids by authorities. It’s just the way it is. The authorities have shot and killed people in their own beds.