Lethal Force
I asked the question when this Mar-a-lago madness began.
Why was it necessary to roll up to a former President's home with an FBI swat team of near 100 agents? Tear gas, automatic weapons, surround the facility, literally storm it?
Now we find there was a “standard” document that authorized “lethal force” during the raid. The bureaucrats in power are now babbling in front of congress about this but says this document allowing lethal force was somehow limiting lethal force. What a crock of poopey. If there was no intent to allow a military style takeover of the Mar-a-lago compound then why was there a military style contingent of agents surrounding the facility armed with automatic weapons and tactical gear?
The only purpose for all this is intimidation, period. And if someone happens to get killed no big deal, we have a get out of jail free memo!
If one was expecting hanky-panky, a more effective tack would actually have been to surreptitiously place discreet agents at say the compound exits with video, send in a small team with a trucks, and whatever bogus warrant, knock on the door, quietly execute the search, remove whatever documents go home. If you see anything suspicious on the video you exploit it later.
The use of such an extreme use of force at a literal private resort shows a complete lack of discretion and total political motivation in an attempt to create fear by the current administration. The same administration that keeps spouting that the people they are intimidating are going to destroy “democracy”. After all intimidating your political opponents is highly democratic. Exactly how many times did justice under the Trump administration raid the homes and property of it's political opponents? How many times did they drag their political opponents out of the airport in shackles? Just curious.
Unbiased Media
It's so pervasive it's almost comical
So apparently “unearthing” plagarism by the president of a university is a 'weapon' that conservatives use to target colleges . . . (Minorities, etc).
My question as a reporter would be somewhat simpler. I'd be calling out the board that was either so inept or so biased, or so corrupt that it failed to do simple due diligence in the vetting process before hiring an individual to run what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious universities in the country. This is beyond the pale. These people are teaching our children, and these universities are producing the lawyers that are to be in charge of our nation. This information should have been “unearthed” by the college long before the individual was hired, but I guess if the college itself cannot hold to the standards it claims to expect from the students, then I guess we should no longer expect it from the new graduates. This is about integrity, the associated press should be ashamed to even write such an article.
