Thanks for your explanation that this is a nothing burger. I accept your analysis. I'll say one thing in response that doesn't contradict my acceptance of what you wrote.
Mark I completely agree with your explanation coming from 35 years of local law enforcement. Escalation of/and use of force, deadly or otherwise is pretty well defined. Putting it in the op order is just someone ticking off boxes on a check sheet. What I do have issue with is having the agents dress in plain clothes, to what purpose? If it was to be a low key, not alert the press, event, which it wasn’t. Then why place the agents in a position of potential misidentification?
Several years ago a uniformed FL SWAT officer was shot and killed during the execution of a search warrant. The bad guy defense, I didn’t know he was a cop. The judge/jury agreed and determined the officer just didn’t have enough “markings/signage” on his uniform so that everyone knew he was a cop. Shouting “police, search warrant” apparently was insufficient also. Why put your agents into that situation?
Now MAL is hardly a crack den but still, with what we recently saw with our new DEI VP secret service detail, who says the past presidents detail is up to snuff.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge gained from your career in LE. As I get older, I am less a fan of search warrants. First, from reading MIH, it seems some (not all such as you and Mr. Wauck) LEOs are lying hacks, think Peter Strzok, who have no respect for the rule of law. Second, hack or lazy judges who rubber stamp applications. Third, the enormous disparity between the government and your average Joe. Fourth, a 97% conviction rate at the federal trial level. Fifth, a man's home is his castle and busting into it to catch him in a crime, other than say, murder, strikes me as a violation of his 5th Amendment rights. Finally, the potential for a homeowner to shoot the police, thinking they're burglars.
Off topic, as it's not government-related. I don't like my phone, TV or automobile spying on me. No Trojan horses, please.
There are indeed a lot of lying hacks, in the world. A few in LE, many who have chosen a legal career, most of our political class, with obvious Tik Tok examples popping up in teaching, medical, used car sales……..
Right, I'm not sure what was going on. FBI agents ALWAYS dress in plain clothes. However, we were all issued "raid jackets" with identifying letters. I wonder whether the term "plain clothes" in this context simply meant, Leave the SWAT regalia back at the office. I don't think there would have been any problem coordinating with USSS on the ground there--everyone has IDs, etc. This wasn't an arrest and search situation involving some sort of dynamic entry. It was, knock on the door, id yourself to USSS and show them the warrant, make a few phone calls if they don't believe it's for real.
I read that last night before I wrote, and perhaps should have quoted it. Bongino is absolutely correct, for the reasons commenter GT64OZ articulates below. OTOH, the op order contained the deconfliction guidelines to be followed, as well. Meaning, the FBI recognized that different LE agencies with different chains of command would be on the ground--not an unusual circumstance--and was prepared to sort things out amicably since both federal agencies follow the same federal laws. DoJ applying for the SW was what was over the top, and the judge granting the application was over the top--from a legal standpoint. The FBI's guidelines on deadly force are NOT over the top.
Both points are valid - the language of deadly force is standard, but the fact that the SW was issued and created confusion and potential conflict between LE agencies is also valid. Bonginos point is similar to Mark's, that the existence of SW is the big deal.
Well stated. However, I would add, for clarification, that the SW wasn't issued "to create", i.e. for the purpose of creating, "confusion and potential conflict between LE agencies." The purpose--and this is the big deal--was to put Trump in a bad light and possibly create the basis for a false prosecution. I say "false" because DoJ and FBI knew that Trump was simply doing what presidents always do, and that the POTUS has a different constitutional status than inferior officers of government. They knew that the purported case against Trump was unreasonable and, according to the Presidential Records Act (exact title?) should be sorted out through negotiations and mutual agreement, if necessary.
Glad I waited for you to weigh in before investing much energy in this story. Seemed sensationalist from the get-go.
Agreed that this item will just end up winding everyone up in the wrong direction, while diverting focus from the real issue here: the impropriety of the entire search in the first place. Unfortunately, conservatives never have the luxury of being wrong, even once. The reactions from some on the right here will be mocked endlessly in the MSM.
This had the ring of nonsense. FBI vs Secret Service? Many conservative outlets ran with this. Do they not have phones? Was this a ginned up bs story put together for bread and circuses to distract from serious people saying important things about the various show trials featuring reality TV Star Donald Trump?
And that's what's so unfortunate when conservatives don't do their homework. It tends to also discredit the messenger--and with the messenger the valid points he may also be making.
What’s with Sundance? He’s been off the rails on so many things lately. The latest freakout about “use of force” at MAL is a case-in-point. I used to think the guy knew what he was talking about. Not anymore.
The problem with Sundance is the same problem that many bloggers with strong views and large followings have. They start weeding out dissenting comments and counterviews, and become echo chambers. That's why I no longer go to sites like CTH, Market Ticker, or - worst of all - Vox Day.
He's a frighteningly clever guy with a vast array of knowledge. However, I find his constant anger - and yes, calls to kill people - very off-putting. Maybe that marks me out as a wuss, but I think that he can make his points better without the constant threats.
I think V Day is still worth paying attention to, and for that matter the same goes for Sundance, but now I have to use much more discretion when reading their thoughts.
I actually find him the most arrogant of all. He is always bragging about how intelligent he is, and insults anyone who has a different opinion. That's a bad habit for a blogger.
I know his Father and Uncles and they are rabid Republicans and evangelicals. His Father was a tax evader and went to jail. They use to own a nice tech company, but with Robert's tax issues and notoriety they sold the company and all family members are gone. I had no idea this guy was blogging, but his background certainly explains his fervor. His Wiki page calling him a white supremacist racist and misogynist is really quite lame and speaks to the projection of those who create bios on Wiki.
Yep, his father certainly lived by his principles, and as far as I know is still in jail for refusing to pay taxes. I respect him for that. I've actually met VD on several occasions, mostly during anti-lockdown demos. I found him obviously highly intelligent but also very narcissistic and "transmitting, not receiving" in his way of communicating. Yes, the Wiki page entry tells us more about Wiki than him. On the plus side, he's a Christian, has a large family, and homeschooled his kids in a country that is pretty anti that kind of thing. He's like Market Ticker: if he could show a bit more humility, he'd be far more effective.
Thanks very much, Mark, for your attention and time and the clarity of your response - plus the humor. BTW, that weatherman should be running the station at least, if not the network.
"lethal force of inherently authorized in a wide variety of search and seizure?!"
No, only authorized as defined in the policy, not "a wide variety". And I can tell you that that policy is more restrictive than some states, and certainly more restrictive than has been the case traditionally.
As for justification after the fact, that leads to miscarriages of justice as with the George Floyd case. LE needs policies to act effectively and justly. If it's all justified after the fact, what's the point of training? We do want trained personnel, don't we?
The real problem with deadly force is whether there is reasonable accountability after the fact.
I should be clear that policy guidelines like these generally do little more than reflect the current state of the law as promulgated by the SCOTUS in its decisions. I was a legal adviser when I was still working--not my primary job, but it means I had specialized training. Basically that training was simply going over SCOTUS decisions and how they were embodied in FBI policy guidelines. Those policy guidelines were sometimes more restrictive than the SCOTUS decisions, for prudential reasons--the FBI was never trying to push the envelope on use of deadly force, they were trying to avoid lawsuits and prosecution of agents. Reminding agents of those guidelines before significant ops that could lead to any sort of confrontation is a good thing, a smart thing for the org to do. Really basic common sense. Bureaucratic CYA often serves a purpose for the public good.
Thanks for your explanation that this is a nothing burger. I accept your analysis. I'll say one thing in response that doesn't contradict my acceptance of what you wrote.
Perception is reality.
There is that.
Mark I completely agree with your explanation coming from 35 years of local law enforcement. Escalation of/and use of force, deadly or otherwise is pretty well defined. Putting it in the op order is just someone ticking off boxes on a check sheet. What I do have issue with is having the agents dress in plain clothes, to what purpose? If it was to be a low key, not alert the press, event, which it wasn’t. Then why place the agents in a position of potential misidentification?
Several years ago a uniformed FL SWAT officer was shot and killed during the execution of a search warrant. The bad guy defense, I didn’t know he was a cop. The judge/jury agreed and determined the officer just didn’t have enough “markings/signage” on his uniform so that everyone knew he was a cop. Shouting “police, search warrant” apparently was insufficient also. Why put your agents into that situation?
Now MAL is hardly a crack den but still, with what we recently saw with our new DEI VP secret service detail, who says the past presidents detail is up to snuff.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge gained from your career in LE. As I get older, I am less a fan of search warrants. First, from reading MIH, it seems some (not all such as you and Mr. Wauck) LEOs are lying hacks, think Peter Strzok, who have no respect for the rule of law. Second, hack or lazy judges who rubber stamp applications. Third, the enormous disparity between the government and your average Joe. Fourth, a 97% conviction rate at the federal trial level. Fifth, a man's home is his castle and busting into it to catch him in a crime, other than say, murder, strikes me as a violation of his 5th Amendment rights. Finally, the potential for a homeowner to shoot the police, thinking they're burglars.
Off topic, as it's not government-related. I don't like my phone, TV or automobile spying on me. No Trojan horses, please.
There are indeed a lot of lying hacks, in the world. A few in LE, many who have chosen a legal career, most of our political class, with obvious Tik Tok examples popping up in teaching, medical, used car sales……..
I typed up a long response to your comment and my stupid tablet swallowed it whole. Arrgh!
Turns out the tablet is innocent. It was my browser, Duck Duck Go.
Right, I'm not sure what was going on. FBI agents ALWAYS dress in plain clothes. However, we were all issued "raid jackets" with identifying letters. I wonder whether the term "plain clothes" in this context simply meant, Leave the SWAT regalia back at the office. I don't think there would have been any problem coordinating with USSS on the ground there--everyone has IDs, etc. This wasn't an arrest and search situation involving some sort of dynamic entry. It was, knock on the door, id yourself to USSS and show them the warrant, make a few phone calls if they don't believe it's for real.
Mark, comments:
https://x.com/dbongino/status/1793069975927705781
I read that last night before I wrote, and perhaps should have quoted it. Bongino is absolutely correct, for the reasons commenter GT64OZ articulates below. OTOH, the op order contained the deconfliction guidelines to be followed, as well. Meaning, the FBI recognized that different LE agencies with different chains of command would be on the ground--not an unusual circumstance--and was prepared to sort things out amicably since both federal agencies follow the same federal laws. DoJ applying for the SW was what was over the top, and the judge granting the application was over the top--from a legal standpoint. The FBI's guidelines on deadly force are NOT over the top.
Both points are valid - the language of deadly force is standard, but the fact that the SW was issued and created confusion and potential conflict between LE agencies is also valid. Bonginos point is similar to Mark's, that the existence of SW is the big deal.
Well stated. However, I would add, for clarification, that the SW wasn't issued "to create", i.e. for the purpose of creating, "confusion and potential conflict between LE agencies." The purpose--and this is the big deal--was to put Trump in a bad light and possibly create the basis for a false prosecution. I say "false" because DoJ and FBI knew that Trump was simply doing what presidents always do, and that the POTUS has a different constitutional status than inferior officers of government. They knew that the purported case against Trump was unreasonable and, according to the Presidential Records Act (exact title?) should be sorted out through negotiations and mutual agreement, if necessary.
Glad I waited for you to weigh in before investing much energy in this story. Seemed sensationalist from the get-go.
Agreed that this item will just end up winding everyone up in the wrong direction, while diverting focus from the real issue here: the impropriety of the entire search in the first place. Unfortunately, conservatives never have the luxury of being wrong, even once. The reactions from some on the right here will be mocked endlessly in the MSM.
Thanks again, Mark.
Thank you for the explanation and clarification!
This had the ring of nonsense. FBI vs Secret Service? Many conservative outlets ran with this. Do they not have phones? Was this a ginned up bs story put together for bread and circuses to distract from serious people saying important things about the various show trials featuring reality TV Star Donald Trump?
And that's what's so unfortunate when conservatives don't do their homework. It tends to also discredit the messenger--and with the messenger the valid points he may also be making.
What’s with Sundance? He’s been off the rails on so many things lately. The latest freakout about “use of force” at MAL is a case-in-point. I used to think the guy knew what he was talking about. Not anymore.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/05/21/some-people-surprised-the-fbi-was-prepared-to-use-deadly-force-against-trump-security-detail-during-mar-a-lago-raid-to-regain-deep-state-fbi-doj-secrets/
The problem with Sundance is the same problem that many bloggers with strong views and large followings have. They start weeding out dissenting comments and counterviews, and become echo chambers. That's why I no longer go to sites like CTH, Market Ticker, or - worst of all - Vox Day.
Curious - what turns you off most about market-ticker? For me it is the vengeance seeking.
He's a frighteningly clever guy with a vast array of knowledge. However, I find his constant anger - and yes, calls to kill people - very off-putting. Maybe that marks me out as a wuss, but I think that he can make his points better without the constant threats.
I think V Day is still worth paying attention to, and for that matter the same goes for Sundance, but now I have to use much more discretion when reading their thoughts.
Definitely. But proceed with caution.
I actually find him the most arrogant of all. He is always bragging about how intelligent he is, and insults anyone who has a different opinion. That's a bad habit for a blogger.
Steg,
I know his Father and Uncles and they are rabid Republicans and evangelicals. His Father was a tax evader and went to jail. They use to own a nice tech company, but with Robert's tax issues and notoriety they sold the company and all family members are gone. I had no idea this guy was blogging, but his background certainly explains his fervor. His Wiki page calling him a white supremacist racist and misogynist is really quite lame and speaks to the projection of those who create bios on Wiki.
Yep, his father certainly lived by his principles, and as far as I know is still in jail for refusing to pay taxes. I respect him for that. I've actually met VD on several occasions, mostly during anti-lockdown demos. I found him obviously highly intelligent but also very narcissistic and "transmitting, not receiving" in his way of communicating. Yes, the Wiki page entry tells us more about Wiki than him. On the plus side, he's a Christian, has a large family, and homeschooled his kids in a country that is pretty anti that kind of thing. He's like Market Ticker: if he could show a bit more humility, he'd be far more effective.
Thanks very much, Mark, for your attention and time and the clarity of your response - plus the humor. BTW, that weatherman should be running the station at least, if not the network.
"lethal force of inherently authorized in a wide variety of search and seizure?!"
No, only authorized as defined in the policy, not "a wide variety". And I can tell you that that policy is more restrictive than some states, and certainly more restrictive than has been the case traditionally.
As for justification after the fact, that leads to miscarriages of justice as with the George Floyd case. LE needs policies to act effectively and justly. If it's all justified after the fact, what's the point of training? We do want trained personnel, don't we?
The real problem with deadly force is whether there is reasonable accountability after the fact.
I should be clear that policy guidelines like these generally do little more than reflect the current state of the law as promulgated by the SCOTUS in its decisions. I was a legal adviser when I was still working--not my primary job, but it means I had specialized training. Basically that training was simply going over SCOTUS decisions and how they were embodied in FBI policy guidelines. Those policy guidelines were sometimes more restrictive than the SCOTUS decisions, for prudential reasons--the FBI was never trying to push the envelope on use of deadly force, they were trying to avoid lawsuits and prosecution of agents. Reminding agents of those guidelines before significant ops that could lead to any sort of confrontation is a good thing, a smart thing for the org to do. Really basic common sense. Bureaucratic CYA often serves a purpose for the public good.