Posted on 08/09/2022 9:53:59 AM PDT by dennisw
Did Merrick Garland have to approve this Trump raid, or can the FBI move on its own? Did the FBI move on its own? My take is that this raid had to be approved by the DOJ, meaning Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Your input is appreciated!
Of course he did.
They used a Never Trumper at the National Archives to get a Judge to sign off so they could confiscate everything and look in his safes.
The same Judge signed off on a FISA, no doubt, and they are electronically surveilling Trump, his family, and businesses.
Like the whistleblower was directed by Schiff to fill out the IG Complaint and leave certain fields empty.
Peter Strzok says he’s still Investigating Trump, and pretty prominent people in charge follow him on Twitter.
This was all about the Confiscation and has nothing to do with Papers.
The same idiot Archivist was running interference for Hillary’s scheme.
IMPEACH, REMOVE, INCARCERATE!
The FBI/DOJ dem gestapo must be eliminated!
WHO GAVE THE ORDERS? They need to be targeted for removal.
“Regardless of whether the FBI was required to have Garland’s approval, it is hard to believe that the FBI would act in such a precedent-shattering manner without notifying Garland.”
The question is not who authorized the raid. I doubt you will find a signature on a piece of paper of anyone we know. There were likely verbal advance heads-up etc with the usual suspects at the top. People were told and in effect OK’d the raid but not in a formal way on paper.
Plausible deniability.
The timing tells us a lot. The raid was conducted 91 days before the 2022 elections.
There’s no way in hell this wasn’t approved by all three — Garland, Wray, and, yes, Biden (or his handler while wiping the drool from his face)...
This seems like a good plan if this they can get it done. Question is, can they? I think they should stick by it until it gets done...shutting down as long as it takes.
Supermajority decision threshold requirements are often found in small deliberative groups where these requirements are sometimes adopted in an attempt to increase protection of varied interests within the group. The requirements may be formally stated or may be unstated (for example, when an organization is described as having a “consensus culture”).
Supermajority decision threshold requirements are often found in small deliberative groups where these requirements are sometimes adopted in an attempt to increase protection of varied interests within the group. The requirements may be formally stated or may be unstated (for example, when an organization is described as having a “consensus culture”).
A common criticism of consensus decision-making is that it can lead to a situation wherein a minority can block the will of the majority. Consensus advocates argue that this is a good feature—that no action is preferable to one without the consensus support of the group.
Attempts to resolve the dilemma through formal supermajority standards are generally discouraged by parliamentary authorities:
Some people have mistakenly assumed that the higher the vote required to take an action, the greater the protection of the members. Instead the opposite is true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an action, control is taken from the majority and given to the minority. ... The higher the vote required, the smaller the minority to which control passes.
—from “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure” by Alice Sturgis[4]
Dominant minority
See also: Dominant minority
A dominant minority, also called elite dominance, is a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country, despite representing a small fraction of the overall population (a demographic minority). Dominant minorities are also known as alien elites if they are recent immigrants.
The term is most commonly used to refer to an ethnic group which is defined along racial, national, religious, cultural or tribal lines and that holds a disproportionate amount of power. A notable example is South Africa during the apartheid regime, where White South Africans wielded predominant control of the country although they were never more than 22% of the population. African American-descended nationals in Liberia, Christians in Sierra Leone, Sunni Arabs in Ba’athist Iraq, the Alawite minority in Syria (since 1970 under the rule of the Alawite Assad family), and the Tutsi in Rwanda from 1884 to 1959 have also been cited as 20th-century and early-21st-century examples.
A common criticism of consensus decision-making is that it can lead to a situation wherein a minority can block the will of the majority. Consensus advocates argue that this is a good feature—that no action is preferable to one without the consensus support of the group.
Attempts to resolve the dilemma through formal supermajority standards are generally discouraged by parliamentary authorities:
Some people have mistakenly assumed that the higher the vote required to take an action, the greater the protection of the members. Instead the opposite is true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an action, control is taken from the majority and given to the minority. ... The higher the vote required, the smaller the minority to which control passes.
—from “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure” by Alice Sturgis[4]
Dominant minority
See also: Dominant minority
A dominant minority, also called elite dominance, is a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country, despite representing a small fraction of the overall population (a demographic minority). Dominant minorities are also known as alien elites if they are recent immigrants.
The term is most commonly used to refer to an ethnic group which is defined along racial, national, religious, cultural or tribal lines and that holds a disproportionate amount of power. A notable example is South Africa during the apartheid regime, where White South Africans wielded predominant control of the country although they were never more than 22% of the population. African American-descended nationals in Liberia, Christians in Sierra Leone, Sunni Arabs in Ba’athist Iraq, the Alawite minority in Syria (since 1970 under the rule of the Alawite Assad family), and the Tutsi in Rwanda from 1884 to 1959 have also been cited as 20th-century and early-21st-century examples.
☝ This ☝
This seems like a good plan if this they can get it done. Question is, can they? I think they should stick by it until it gets done...shutting down as long as it takes.
Supermajority decision threshold requirements are often found in small deliberative groups where these requirements are sometimes adopted in an attempt to increase protection of varied interests within the group. The requirements may be formally stated or may be unstated (for example, when an organization is described as having a “consensus culture”).
A common criticism of consensus decision-making is that it can lead to a situation wherein a minority can block the will of the majority. Consensus advocates argue that this is a good feature—that no action is preferable to one without the consensus support of the group.
Attempts to resolve the dilemma through formal supermajority standards are generally discouraged by parliamentary authorities:
Some people have mistakenly assumed that the higher the vote required to take an action, the greater the protection of the members. Instead the opposite is true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an action, control is taken from the majority and given to the minority. ... The higher the vote required, the smaller the minority to which control passes.
—from “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure” by Alice Sturgis[4]
Dominant minority
See also: Dominant minority
A dominant minority, also called elite dominance, is a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country, despite representing a small fraction of the overall population (a demographic minority). Dominant minorities are also known as alien elites if they are recent immigrants.
The term is most commonly used to refer to an ethnic group which is defined along racial, national, religious, cultural or tribal lines and that holds a disproportionate amount of power. A notable example is South Africa during the apartheid regime, where White South Africans wielded predominant control of the country although they were never more than 22% of the population. African American-descended nationals in Liberia, Christians in Sierra Leone, Sunni Arabs in Ba’athist Iraq, the Alawite minority in Syria (since 1970 under the rule of the Alawite Assad family), and the Tutsi in Rwanda from 1884 to 1959 have also been cited as 20th-century and early-21st-century examples.
A common criticism of consensus decision-making is that it can lead to a situation wherein a minority can block the will of the majority. Consensus advocates argue that this is a good feature—that no action is preferable to one without the consensus support of the group.
Attempts to resolve the dilemma through formal supermajority standards are generally discouraged by parliamentary authorities:
Some people have mistakenly assumed that the higher the vote required to take an action, the greater the protection of the members. Instead the opposite is true. Whenever a vote of more than a majority is required to take an action, control is taken from the majority and given to the minority. ... The higher the vote required, the smaller the minority to which control passes.
—from “The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure” by Alice Sturgis[4]
Dominant minority
See also: Dominant minority
A dominant minority, also called elite dominance, is a minority group that has overwhelming political, economic, or cultural dominance in a country, despite representing a small fraction of the overall population (a demographic minority). Dominant minorities are also known as alien elites if they are recent immigrants.
The term is most commonly used to refer to an ethnic group which is defined along racial, national, religious, cultural or tribal lines and that holds a disproportionate amount of power. A notable example is South Africa during the apartheid regime, where White South Africans wielded predominant control of the country although they were never more than 22% of the population. African American-descended nationals in Liberia, Christians in Sierra Leone, Sunni Arabs in Ba’athist Iraq, the Alawite minority in Syria (since 1970 under the rule of the Alawite Assad family), and the Tutsi in Rwanda from 1884 to 1959 have also been cited as 20th-century and early-21st-century examples.
Anything this politically hot was approved all the way up to Obama or whoever is running the shadow Presidency.
Obama, Easter Bunny, and some guy in a basement in Delaware would all have to sign off on an Armed Raid on the property of a Secret-Service protected former President. Plus, the boss of the FBI.NKVD, Merrick Garland Garfinkle, would have ordered it done.
Most likely the democrats orchestrated this raid, with assistance from the FBI, on their own! Don’t ya know? They run things now and they hav six ways to Sunday to get back at you!
The piece of $hit Merrick Garland was involved 100%.
So was that dirtbag Christopher Wray.
Tells you a lot, doesn't it? And Wray is conveniently out of town.
“Did Merrick Garland have to approve this Trump raid, or can the FBI move on its own? Did the FBI move on its own?”
I’m betting the chain of command for that raid was Garland, Klain, Rice, Obama and the kingpin, Soros
“I’m betting the chain of command for that raid was Garland, Klain, Rice, Obama and the kingpin, Soros”
Insert Valerie Jarrett in here just before Susan Rice. Merrick Garland is their errand boy. Soros is too old (91) to be involved in such piddling stuff.
Obungu at the top. Biden can’t even tie his own shoelaces. Doc Jill does this
Soros might be old but I don’t believe he’s abandon his goal of destroying the US so a one world government can be born with his son Alexander as the leader ... that’s that same son that has been schmoozing with Pelosi and Schiff. Also look at his involvement in US politics:
“Biden appoints radical George Soros backed DA to US Attorney”
and
“George Soros-backed district attorneys are ruining America”
I believe he loves it when people write him off as a senile billionaire who doesn’t really know what he is doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.