What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

30 ex-FBI agents, retired deputy assistant director+head of counterterr+5 SWAT team members, speak out publicly supporting suspended FBI whistleblower

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
23,207
Reaction score
16,868
Points
2,415
Location
USA
Lefties are getting hammered right now.

So they just lay low for a while.

But dont be fooled. They haven't gone away.

The only hope our nation has--and it is thinner than a human hair--is to shame them into obscurity and make their ideas such an open farce and mockery they will never admit they had them.

It's possible.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
The local civil AND CRIMINAL courts dismissed the charges. That's it. Only Biden's crooked, corrupt DOJ picked it up, with the FBI acting as henchmen.

And you're fine with it, of course.
Different charges are involved. The first were assault, that the prosecutors tossed. This one is invoking the Freedom of Access Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, which is different and at the federal level.

What I am fine with is two things: having the facts come out, whether or not it involves a conviction or exoneration. Secondly, that pro-some-lifers understand they are not allowed to impede or intimidate people trying to get a legal abortion.
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
23,207
Reaction score
16,868
Points
2,415
Location
USA
Different charges are involved. The first were assault, that the prosecutors tossed. This one is invoking the Freedom of Access Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, which is different and at the federal level.

What I am fine with is two things: having the facts come out, whether or not it involves a conviction or exoneration. Secondly, that pro-some-lifers understand they are not allowed to impede or intimidate people trying to get a legal abortion.

Is sending 25 armed agents to someone's home where there are underage children not a form of intimidation? Or no?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
It was a riot that got out of control; those people should not have broken into the Capitol--unless the police let them in, which seems to be an open question.

It is only an “open question” to Trumpists seeking a way to exonerate the rioters. The police were massively overwhelmed and “blue lives matter” turned into a joke.


There, see? I'm not going to meet you on "insurrection" or that the Capitol building is "sacred", but I agree the protest went entirely too far.
Well, at least we can agree a little. But if the Capitol isn’t sacred….what is? What matters? Maybe I am more conservative and traditional than Iever thought.



You, OTOH, seem to think the appropriate response to a man pushing another down who got in the face of his child is 25 armed FBI agents showing up at their house.

Oh there you go again putting your emotions ahead of the facts.

I can't fix that, and I can't share a nation with it.

It's over.

You keep making these implied threats Indicating you can not share a country with people who still support the democratic process our founders set up, or accept the plurality that is our nation. You should be happy…you are a minority, who controls most of the political and judicial processes in our nation, who’s last two presidents failed to win the popular vote. But that is not enough for you. You have to force your way down our throats and if we don’t agree destroy us.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
Is sending 25 armed agents to someone's home where there are underage children not a form of intimidation? Or no?
What 25 armed agents?
 

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
4,512
Points
1,938
Location
Texas
I was in some of those threads dude
Yes, you were. But you weren't making the kind of absurd arguments that your sister Democrats were. And I don't remember any of the other Democratic mods even going on the threads about Martha's Vineyard. It was indefensible, so they did not defend it (that I know of).

Please check what she actually said to me.
You have a good point. It was this:

Of course you are sure. Your people could commit murder and you’d attack the police trying to stop it. Fascist.

It seems out of character for for Coyote.

In reality, Trump supporters were the ones flying Thin Blue Line flags when the Democratic ANTIFA/BLM gangs were murdering police officers and the Dems reacted by pushing to defund police.

As far as I know, the only murder committed on Jan 6 was by a police officer who stood flat footed and shot a woman in the head from less than ten feet away because she broke a door window.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
Yes, you were. But you weren't making the kind of absurd arguments that your sister Democrats were. And I don't remember any of the other Democratic mods even going on the threads about Martha's Vineyard. It was indefensible, so they did not defend it (that I know of).


You have a good point. It was this:



It seems out of character for for Coyote.

In reality, Trump supporters were the ones flying Thin Blue Line flags when the Democratic ANTIFA/BLM gangs were murdering police officers and the Dems reacted by pushing to defund police.

As far as I know, the only murder committed on Jan 6 was by a police officer who stood flat footed and shot a woman in the head from less than ten feet away because she broke a door window.
I respond in kind, you should note what she has been saying. If she can not handle pushback, she shouldn’t sling the mud.
 

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
4,512
Points
1,938
Location
Texas
I respond in kind, you should note what she has been saying. If she can not handle pushback, she shouldn’t sling the mud.
Fair point.

SweetSue92 entered the thread with a callout of you demanding that you defend an exagerated version of the faults of the Democratic actions of late. So you responded with an demand to defend an exagerated version of the actions of Trump supporters of late. This is a very common debate technique on this and other forums.

Let me bow out of that feline melee, with apologies to both, and continue to introduce some non-exagerated arguments:

Different charges are involved. The first were assault, that the prosecutors tossed. This one is invoking the Freedom of Access Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, which is different and at the federal level.

What I am fine with is two things: having the facts come out, whether or not it involves a conviction or exoneration. Secondly, that pro-some-lifers understand they are not allowed to impede or intimidate people trying to get a legal abortion.
Here is how the FACE Act was described before it passed (highlighting not mine):
1664637065314.png

I was well aware of Ted Kennedy's bill when it was introduced. The queston asked at the time was why only for "reproductive health," meaning abortion? Was this law intended to stifle one kind of speech, based on its contents, i.e. pro-life?

The obvious answer was yes, what else could it be for? The clear intent of this bill was to provide a way to get around the double jeopardy laws, if an abortion protester were found not guilty of a violent crime outside of an abortion clinic, or to prosecute someone - specifically an abortion protester - that local jurisdictions did not.

Here is the potential punishment part of the law that this bill became:

1664637552621.png


The wife likely exageraged the number of armed agents. It is common for a person not used to armed attack to overestimate the number of attackers, I saw that often in the Army. So, it was not likely fifteen. The question is how many FBI agents are needed to go to a family home to arrest a man for a misdemeaner charge with one year as the maximum punishment? At a time when murderers are being released with no bail, that seems excessive, to say the least.

Is it ever right to push down a seventy-two year old man? If he is intimidating my twelve year old son, and getting in his face, I wouldn't hesitate to push him, and he might well fall down. That would neither be wrong nor a crime.

Or maybe, after many times protesting, the dad suddenly and randomly selected an old man who was escorting an abortion patient and pushed him down with no provocation. That seems unlikely, but that is the Democratic narrative. I can't know how it happened, I wasn't there.

The local court looked at the case and dropped it. I'm not sure how anyone outside the case can claim to know more about it.

Just as predicted in 1994, the FBI used the FACE Act to punish dissent, when no other crime could be proven.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
Fair point.

SweetSue92 entered the thread with a callout of you demanding that you defend an exagerated version of the faults of the Democratic actions of late. So you responded with an demand to defend an exagerated version of the actions of Trump supporters of late. This is a very common debate technique on this and other forums.

Let me bow out of that feline melee, with apologies to both, and continue to introduce some non-exagerated arguments:
:lol: never get in the middle of a cat fight ;)

5F71A23F-5EF0-4AE2-BB96-5BB4E4DEE062.gif






Here is how the FACE Act was described before it passed (highlighting not mine):
View attachment 704041
I was well aware of Ted Kennedy's bill when it was introduced. The queston asked at the time was why only for "reproductive health," meaning abortion? Was this law intended to stifle one kind of speech, based on its contents, i.e. pro-life?
I hadn’t actually read it before, so that is interesting. A few points….it also specifically includes houses of worship. I don’t see it as stifling free speech since free speech does include tbe right to interfere with another person’s free exercise of their rights and that is what the law addresses. The are still allowed to fully exercise their free speech rights.


The obvious answer was yes, what else could it be for? The clear intent of this bill was to provide a way to get around the double jeopardy laws, if an abortion protester were found not guilty of a violent crime outside of an abortion clinic, or to prosecute someone - specifically an abortion protester - that local jurisdictions did not.

I would disagree on the intent of double jeopardy part. They can’t prosecute a person for nothing. At the time it was passed protesters were physically preventing patients from accessing clinics and even trying to intimidate or threaten them. If it stops short of assault, then most likely there are no local laws covering it or in some jurisdictions no political will to stop it.


Here is the potential punishment part of the law that this bill became:

View attachment 704043


The wife likely exageraged the number of armed agents. It is common for a person not used to armed attack to overestimate the number of attackers, I saw that often in the Army. So, it was not likely fifteen. The question is how many FBI agents are needed to go to a family home to arrest a man for a misdemeaner charge with one year as the maximum punishment? At a time when murderers are being released with no bail, that seems excessive, to say the least.

I think one has nothing to do with the other (FBI, murderers being released, etc)…these problems cross multiple jurisdictional lines and laws.

Like any part of the federal government, the FBI is part of a bureaucracy full of rules and procedures and there probably is a standard procedure for how many agents and their conduct. I can only go by the one photo that shows 3, I think, on the porch holding what looks like a warrant. Apparently there were two incidents, and the first was criminal complaint was disposed of so the DoJ could take charge (in other words it wasn’t dismissed for lack of merit. Houck was notified he was the target of an investigation ahead of this.

A family spokesman alleges that “B.L.” filed a private criminal complaint against Houck after police and the district attorney declined to pursue criminal charges, according to a Catholic News Agency story. The spokesman said the complaint was dismissed in July after the escort repeatedly failed to appear in court.

Philadelphia Municipal Court records show a man with the initial “B.L.” filed a private criminal complaint against Houck in October 2021 and the complaint is listed as disposed. The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office confirmed Monday that the office did approve a private criminal complaint against Houck earlier this year.

"But the case was disposed of locally so the DOJ could assume and lead the investigation," DA spokeswoman Jane Roh said. "It is incorrect to say that we declined this case."

The Houck spokesman reportedly said that after the private complaint was disposed, the U.S. The Attorney's Office notified Houck in writing that he was the focus of a federal criminal probe into the same incident.

Houck’s attorney tried to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office to discuss the allegations but did not receive a response, the spokesman said.


Source: FBI denies anti-abortion activist's claims that SWAT force was used in Bucks County arrest


Is it ever right to push down a seventy-two year old man? If he is intimidating my twelve year old son, and getting in his face, I wouldn't hesitate to push him, and he might well fall down. That would neither be wrong nor a crime.

“intimidating and getting in the face” is kind of a vague statement that could mean anything, including a situation Houck himself might have initiated. I am sure there are witnesses who could clarify what exactly happened, but I don’t agree that it justifies assault. If you are peacefully protesting something, then you remove your child from the situation. The child is not being hit, manhandled or assaulted. What are you teaching your kid with this? That it is ok to use force because some one insults you?


Or maybe, after many times protesting, the dad suddenly and randomly selected an old man who was escorting an abortion patient and pushed him down with no provocation. That seems unlikely, but that is the Democratic narrative. I can't know how it happened, I wasn't there.

Or, maybe one escort got fed up and said something and Houck assaulted him. Maybe Houck was not acting as peacefully as he claims and was obstructing people and the escort told him to cut it out. The Republican narrative seems to be that he was innocently protesting and initiated nothing. What is the truth?

Houck had been protesting for some time. Some of the escorts complained he came across as very intimidating and carried a large knife. I suspect this wasn’t an out of the blue occurrence but built up over time. Maybe they had words, a verbal altercation, until Houck assaulted him. Not once but on two occasions.


The local court looked at the case and dropped it. I'm not sure how anyone outside the case can claim to know more about it.

Per the article I posted above, it was not dropped for lack of merit.


Just as predicted in 1994, the FBI used the FACE Act to punish dissent, when no other crime could be proven.

Assault has never been considered an appropriate way to express dissent.
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
23,207
Reaction score
16,868
Points
2,415
Location
USA
It is only an “open question” to Trumpists seeking a way to exonerate the rioters. The police were massively overwhelmed and “blue lives matter” turned into a joke.



Well, at least we can agree a little. But if the Capitol isn’t sacred….what is? What matters? Maybe I am more conservative and traditional than Iever thought.





Oh there you go again putting your emotions ahead of the facts.



You keep making these implied threats Indicating you can not share a country with people who still support the democratic process our founders set up, or accept the plurality that is our nation. You should be happy…you are a minority, who controls most of the political and judicial processes in our nation, who’s last two presidents failed to win the popular vote. But that is not enough for you. You have to force your way down our throats and if we don’t agree destroy us.

Sacred--worthy of worship, veneration. I will link the definition. Interesting that you all use and defend THAT word, huh? The State is a god to you.


Lastly, an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy like the DOJ and FBI that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, and yet erodes and even stomps on our Constitutional rights, is indeed in no way American. You think it's the ultimate America because you love to see your opponents boot-stomped, apparently. Good. Do it in another country. We can no longer share a nation. Don't you see that?
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
23,207
Reaction score
16,868
Points
2,415
Location
USA
:lol: never get in the middle of a cat fight ;)

View attachment 704086






I hadn’t actually read it before, so that is interesting. A few points….it also specifically includes houses of worship. I don’t see it as stifling free speech since free speech does include tbe right to interfere with another person’s free exercise of their rights and that is what the law addresses. The are still allowed to fully exercise their free speech rights.




I would disagree on the intent of double jeopardy part. They can’t prosecute a person for nothing. At the time it was passed protesters were physically preventing patients from accessing clinics and even trying to intimidate or threaten them. If it stops short of assault, then most likely there are no local laws covering it or in some jurisdictions no political will to stop it.







I think one has nothing to do with the other (FBI, murderers being released, etc)…these problems cross multiple jurisdictional lines and laws.

Like any part of the federal government, the FBI is part of a bureaucracy full of rules and procedures and there probably is a standard procedure for how many agents and their conduct. I can only go by the one photo that shows 3, I think, on the porch holding what looks like a warrant. Apparently there were two incidents, and the first was criminal complaint was disposed of so the DoJ could take charge (in other words it wasn’t dismissed for lack of merit. Houck was notified he was the target of an investigation ahead of this.

A family spokesman alleges that “B.L.” filed a private criminal complaint against Houck after police and the district attorney declined to pursue criminal charges, according to a Catholic News Agency story. The spokesman said the complaint was dismissed in July after the escort repeatedly failed to appear in court.

Philadelphia Municipal Court records show a man with the initial “B.L.” filed a private criminal complaint against Houck in October 2021 and the complaint is listed as disposed. The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office confirmed Monday that the office did approve a private criminal complaint against Houck earlier this year.

"But the case was disposed of locally so the DOJ could assume and lead the investigation," DA spokeswoman Jane Roh said. "It is incorrect to say that we declined this case."

The Houck spokesman reportedly said that after the private complaint was disposed, the U.S. The Attorney's Office notified Houck in writing that he was the focus of a federal criminal probe into the same incident.

Houck’s attorney tried to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office to discuss the allegations but did not receive a response, the spokesman said.


Source: FBI denies anti-abortion activist's claims that SWAT force was used in Bucks County arrest




“intimidating and getting in the face” is kind of a vague statement that could mean anything, including a situation Houck himself might have initiated. I am sure there are witnesses who could clarify what exactly happened, but I don’t agree that it justifies assault. If you are peacefully protesting something, then you remove your child from the situation. The child is not being hit, manhandled or assaulted. What are you teaching your kid with this? That it is ok to use force because some one insults you?




Or, maybe one escort got fed up and said something and Houck assaulted him. Maybe Houck was not acting as peacefully as he claims and was obstructing people and the escort told him to cut it out. The Republican narrative seems to be that he was innocently protesting and initiated nothing. What is the truth?

Houck had been protesting for some time. Some of the escorts complained he came across as very intimidating and carried a large knife. I suspect this wasn’t an out of the blue occurrence but built up over time. Maybe they had words, a verbal altercation, until Houck assaulted him. Not once but on two occasions.




Per the article I posted above, it was not dropped for lack of merit.




Assault has never been considered an appropriate way to express dissent.

The local criminal and civil courts would have looked at ALL of this--and they dismissed it. But not Biden's henchmen. Nope.
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
23,207
Reaction score
16,868
Points
2,415
Location
USA
Fair point.

SweetSue92 entered the thread with a callout of you demanding that you defend an exagerated version of the faults of the Democratic actions of late. So you responded with an demand to defend an exagerated version of the actions of Trump supporters of late. This is a very common debate technique on this and other forums.

Let me bow out of that feline melee, with apologies to both, and continue to introduce some non-exagerated arguments:


Here is how the FACE Act was described before it passed (highlighting not mine):
View attachment 704041
I was well aware of Ted Kennedy's bill when it was introduced. The queston asked at the time was why only for "reproductive health," meaning abortion? Was this law intended to stifle one kind of speech, based on its contents, i.e. pro-life?

The obvious answer was yes, what else could it be for? The clear intent of this bill was to provide a way to get around the double jeopardy laws, if an abortion protester were found not guilty of a violent crime outside of an abortion clinic, or to prosecute someone - specifically an abortion protester - that local jurisdictions did not.

Here is the potential punishment part of the law that this bill became:

View attachment 704043

The wife likely exageraged the number of armed agents. It is common for a person not used to armed attack to overestimate the number of attackers, I saw that often in the Army. So, it was not likely fifteen. The question is how many FBI agents are needed to go to a family home to arrest a man for a misdemeaner charge with one year as the maximum punishment? At a time when murderers are being released with no bail, that seems excessive, to say the least.

Is it ever right to push down a seventy-two year old man? If he is intimidating my twelve year old son, and getting in his face, I wouldn't hesitate to push him, and he might well fall down. That would neither be wrong nor a crime.

Or maybe, after many times protesting, the dad suddenly and randomly selected an old man who was escorting an abortion patient and pushed him down with no provocation. That seems unlikely, but that is the Democratic narrative. I can't know how it happened, I wasn't there.

The local court looked at the case and dropped it. I'm not sure how anyone outside the case can claim to know more about it.

Just as predicted in 1994, the FBI used the FACE Act to punish dissent, when no other crime could be proven.

You are mostly right but also not quite.

Any American cheerleading the weaponizing of armed govt bureaucracies like this deserves to have their arguments framed as exactly what they are.

In short. Give me a break on the "exaggerating". You know what this is and so do I.
 

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
6,042
Reaction score
4,512
Points
1,938
Location
Texas
:lol: never get in the middle of a cat fight ;)

View attachment 704086
No ma'am!
I hadn’t actually read it before, so that is interesting. A few points….it also specifically includes houses of worship. I don’t see it as stifling free speech since free speech does include tbe right to interfere with another person’s free exercise of their rights and that is what the law addresses. The are still allowed to fully exercise their free speech rights.
I hadn't noticed the part about houses of worship. My guess is that this part was added at the insistence of Republicans, as if to say, "If you get to protect your favorites - abortionists - we get to protect our favorites - worshippers." I disagree with both. No action that would be legal and protected speech outside of a department store, a library, or factory, a should be illegal outside of an abortion clinic or church.
I would disagree on the intent of double jeopardy part. They can’t prosecute a person for nothing. At the time it was passed protesters were physically preventing patients from accessing clinics and even trying to intimidate or threaten them. If it stops short of assault, then most likely there are no local laws covering it or in some jurisdictions no political will to stop it.
I don't mind that if it applies to all protesters. I was in management at UPS during a strike and the union goons physically prevented access to the work place and did more than trying to intimidate or theaten us. No special federal law protected us. In fact it was the union goons who were protected.
I think one has nothing to do with the other (FBI, murderers being released, etc)…these problems cross multiple jurisdictional lines and laws.
It's a comparison of how Democrats treat one crime and how they treat another.
Like any part of the federal government, the FBI is part of a bureaucracy full of rules and procedures and there probably is a standard procedure for how many agents and their conduct. I can only go by the one photo that shows 3, I think, on the porch holding what looks like a warrant. Apparently there were two incidents, and the first was criminal complaint was disposed of so the DoJ could take charge (in other words it wasn’t dismissed for lack of merit. Houck was notified he was the target of an investigation ahead of this.

A family spokesman alleges that “B.L.” filed a private criminal complaint against Houck after police and the district attorney declined to pursue criminal charges, according to a Catholic News Agency story. The spokesman said the complaint was dismissed in July after the escort repeatedly failed to appear in court.

Philadelphia Municipal Court records show a man with the initial “B.L.” filed a private criminal complaint against Houck in October 2021 and the complaint is listed as disposed. The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office confirmed Monday that the office did approve a private criminal complaint against Houck earlier this year.

"But the case was disposed of locally so the DOJ could assume and lead the investigation," DA spokeswoman Jane Roh said. "It is incorrect to say that we declined this case."

The Houck spokesman reportedly said that after the private complaint was disposed, the U.S. The Attorney's Office notified Houck in writing that he was the focus of a federal criminal probe into the same incident.

Houck’s attorney tried to contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office to discuss the allegations but did not receive a response, the spokesman said.


Source: FBI denies anti-abortion activist's claims that SWAT force was used in Bucks County arrest
I agree that the number of agents were likely less than reported by the wife. The agent's body cams will tell us the answer to that, just as soon as the FBI releases them unredacted to the publ . . . :auiqs.jpg:. . . sorry, couldn't finish that with a straight face.

As to the FBI taking over the case, it is much more typically the FBI that insists on taking a case, not local jurisdictions asking them to please step in. Not for what - assuming worst case against the dad - would amount to simple battery.

The FBI, and no doubt the DOJ, chose this case, and it is no coincidence that it comes so soon after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Overturning Roe will reduce clinic violence as pro-lifers feel less helpless to legally protect the unborn. The Biden admin want to make an example out of the dad. This is not even about dissent. Maybe it was before Dobbs, but now the official policy is that the federal government leaves abortion to the states.
“intimidating and getting in the face” is kind of a vague statement that could mean anything, including a situation Houck himself might have initiated. I am sure there are witnesses who could clarify what exactly happened, but I don’t agree that it justifies assault. If you are peacefully protesting something, then you remove your child from the situation. The child is not being hit, manhandled or assaulted. What are you teaching your kid with this? That it is ok to use force because some one insults you?Or, maybe one escort got fed up and said something and Houck assaulted him. Maybe Houck was not acting as peacefully as he claims and was obstructing people and the escort told him to cut it out. The Republican narrative seems to be that he was innocently protesting and initiated nothing. What is the truth?

Houck had been protesting for some time. Some of the escorts complained he came across as very intimidating and carried a large knife. I suspect this wasn’t an out of the blue occurrence but built up over time. Maybe they had words, a verbal altercation, until Houck assaulted him. Not once but on two occasions.
Per the article I posted above, it was not dropped for lack of merit.

Assault has never been considered an appropriate way to express dissent.
Assuming the worst of Mr. Houck for the sake of argument, that he got mad about a seventy-two year old advocating the killing of the unborn after being born and living that long and pushed the guy: That is still simple assault and is appropriately handled on the local level.

Clearly, the FBI sees more to this story than simple assault, and wants to make an example so that all are intimidated from exercising their first amendment rights.
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
6,103
Reaction score
2,741
Points
163
Sacred--worthy of worship, veneration. I will link the definition. Interesting that you all use and defend THAT word, huh? The State is a god to you.


Lastly, an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy like the DOJ and FBI that appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, and yet erodes and even stomps on our Constitutional rights, is indeed in no way American. You think it's the ultimate America because you love to see your opponents boot-stomped, apparently. Good. Do it in another country. We can no longer share a nation. Don't you see that?
Republicans, conservatives and Trump supporters have no problem with police that stomp on our civil rights. The left has been trying to discuss and enact police reforms and have been relentlessly attacked from conservatives for doing so.

This isn’t standing on principle. It’s just tribalism. You only have a problem when this happens to a conservative Christian.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
44,990
Reaction score
39,482
Points
3,615
Honey. You used to be partly rational. Now, not so much.

You kind of ignore what is known and what is only being claimed before jumping on your outrage platform.

1. The 72 yr old man he “pushed”, landed on the ground and required medical attention. That is not in dispute, it is a matter of record.

2. There are federal laws protecting people trying to access abortion clinics. That is a fact.

Any argument with the above?

Let’s move on to the unsupported claims.


Basically, per the article, the claims made by Houck can not verified.

This is what is claimed by each side:

A SWAT team of about 25 came to my house with about 15 vehicles and started pounding on our door,” she said, describing her husband’s arrest on Friday. “They had about five guns pointed at my husband, myself, and basically at my kids. They came in as if they were expecting some kind of confrontation.”

On Monday, a spokesperson for the FBI’s Philadelphia field office called the Houcks’ recounting of events as “inaccurate” and described agents’ conduct as “professional” and “in line with standard practices.”

“No SWAT team or SWAT operators were involved,” the statement read. “FBI agents knocked on Mr. Houck’s front door, identified themselves as FBI agents, and asked him to exit the residence. He did so and was taken into custody without incident pursuant to an indictment.”


This is the only picture I can find that is identified as from the incident, and seems to be taken from a door camera. It certainly does match what the Houck’s claim.

Mr. Houck is a very big man. He allegedly assaulted a 72 yr old man. I am sure there were witnesses and the facts of the case will come out in the trial, one way or the other.

You ”pro-lifers” have a decades long history of violence: bombings, murders, assaults and arsons for your cause.


I recall Trump’s FBI driving around picking people up off the street with out cause or warrant after protests. Or trying to use the military against civilians. How quickly you forget (or maybe you agree). The far right, Trump’s solid blindly faithful base, has increasingly embracing authoritarianism over democratic principles. That comes far closer to fascism than a handful of FBI agents carrying out an arrest warrant.



If we mods have collectively “lost our minds” I think it is more likely you who is the one with a questionable mind.
Local matter that was investigated with no charges. The cretin filed a lawsuit that was thrown out.

So, explain how a simple assault that resulted in no charges warrants a raid by dozens of FBI thugs and shackles?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
No ma'am!

I hadn't noticed the part about houses of worship. My guess is that this part was added at the insistence of Republicans, as if to say, "If you get to protect your favorites - abortionists - we get to protect our favorites - worshippers." I disagree with both. No action that would be legal and protected speech outside of a department store, a library, or factory, a should be illegal outside of an abortion clinic or church.

Here is what the FACE Act actually protects and doesn’t protect:

Any activity that blocks access to the entrance or obstructs the exit of a facility, including impairing cars from entering and leaving parking lots; impeding the progress of people trying to walk towards doors or through parking lots; or making getting in and out of the facility difficult or dangerous.
• Trespassing, such as clinic invasions.
• Acts of physical violence, such as shoving, directed
towards clinic employees, escorts or patients.
• Vandalizing a reproductive health care facility by gluing
locks or pouring butyric acid.
• Threats of violence. For example, in 1996 a woman was
found guilty of a FACE violation for yelling through a bullhorn to a doctor, "Robert, remember Dr. Gunn. This could happen to you..." (referring to a doctor who was shot in 1993).4 In another case, a man was found to have threatened force under FACE when he parked a Ryder truck outside of a clinic shortly after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City where a Ryder truck had carried the explosives.5
• Stalking a clinic employee or a reproductive health provider.
• Arson or threats of arson.

Bombings or bomb threats.

Do any of those qualify as protected free speech?

Also it’s relevant to consider what was happening at the the time which led to it’s passage:

During the 1980’s and early1990’s, clinic protests and blockades were on the rise. Violence against abortion providers was escalating across the country, culminating in the murder of Dr. Gunn in March of 1993 outside a Pensacola, FL clinic and the attempted murder of Dr. Tiller in August of 1993 outside his Wichita, KS clinic. These incidents created urgency in Congress to pass new federal legislation to address the violence committed against reproductive health care facilities and providers and the denial of access to women seeking their services.



From Wikipedia Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act - Wikipedia
Between the years 1978 and 1993, there was an increase in the number of crimes committed against abortion providers and abortion clinics. According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been at least 9 murders, 17 attempted murders, 406 death threats, 179 incidents of assault or battery, and 5 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. In addition, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 175 arsons, 96 attempted bombings or arsons, 692 bomb threats, 1993 incidents of trespassing, 1400 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[3] In April 1992, thousands of "prayer warriors" and anti-abortion protesters met at the entrances of Buffalo Abortion Clinics for a planned month of picketing and blockades, trying to dissuade women from ending their pregnancies.[4] After seven days of protests, involving Operation Rescue, over 400 protesters were arrested.[5][6]

One anti-abortion group known as the Army of God was especially active in committing these violent crimes. This group alone was responsible for bombing and setting fire to over one hundred clinics before 1994. They also invaded more than three hundred clinics and vandalized more than four hundred[7] In 1993, officials found the Army of God Manual, a tactical guide to arson, chemical attacks, invasions and bombing,[8] buried in the backyard of Army of God activist Shelley Shannon’s home. Shelley Shannon was soon found guilty of the attempted murder of Dr. George Tiller that same year.[9]

In addition to committing acts of violence, some anti-abortion activists were known to stalk medical personnel and use their photographs on "Wanted for Murder" posters.[7] This on-going violence reached its peak in March 1993 when Dr. David Gunn, a physician whose medical practice included abortion procedures, was shot and killed by Michael F. Griffin outside of the Pensacola Women's Medical Services clinic located in Pensacola, Florida.[7] This increase in violence had become very burdensome to local law enforcement, and according to some, local policing of the issue was often lax.[10] Certain senators and representatives believed that such unlawful conduct was interfering with the constitutional right of women to receive reproductive health care services (abortion in particular), which was guaranteed by the Supreme Court after the ruling of Roe v. Wade in 1973,[11][12] until revoked by the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022.[13]


These weren’t random or isolated incidents of occasional violence, nor were they protected free speech, and they causing a lot of problems for local law enforcement. I can't find any other examples of systemic serious violence covering years against other targets so I don't know why it would need to include everyone or everything.
I don't mind that if it applies to all protesters. I was in management at UPS during a strike and the union goons physically prevented access to the work place and did more than trying to intimidate or theaten us. No special federal law protected us. In fact it was the union goons who were protected.
That is a whole nother animal though isn't? Funny thing, I live in a state steeped in the history of company violence and unions and labor wars.


It's a comparison of how Democrats treat one crime and how they treat another.

I don't see that. This was 1994 and the legislation had bipartisan support.

I agree that the number of agents were likely less than reported by the wife. The agent's body cams will tell us the answer to that, just as soon as the FBI releases them unredacted to the publ . . . :auiqs.jpg:. . . sorry, couldn't finish that with a straight face.

That is true, bodycams would show it. Of course the Houcks own entrance camera showed it.

As to the FBI taking over the case, it is much more typically the FBI that insists on taking a case, not local jurisdictions asking them to please step in. Not for what - assuming worst case against the dad - would amount to simple battery.

Assault is assault.

The FBI, and no doubt the DOJ, chose this case, and it is no coincidence that it comes so soon after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Overturning Roe will reduce clinic violence as pro-lifers feel less helpless to legally protect the unborn. The Biden admin want to make an example out of the dad. This is not even about dissent. Maybe it was before Dobbs, but now the official policy is that the federal government leaves abortion to the states.

I doubt it. It isn't the administation making a big deal.

Assuming the worst of Mr. Houck for the sake of argument, that he got mad about a seventy-two year old advocating the killing of the unborn after being born and living that long and pushed the guy: That is still simple assault and is appropriately handled on the local level.

If it is a federal law, then the feds handle it.
Clearly, the FBI sees more to this story than simple assault, and wants to make an example so that all are intimidated from exercising their first amendment rights.
Again...assault isn't and has never been a first amendment right.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
44,990
Reaction score
39,482
Points
3,615
Different charges are involved. The first were assault, that the prosecutors tossed. This one is invoking the Freedom of Access Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, which is different and at the federal level.

What I am fine with is two things: having the facts come out, whether or not it involves a conviction or exoneration. Secondly, that pro-some-lifers understand they are not allowed to impede or intimidate people trying to get a legal abortion.
Was this man who was berating a kid trying to access the building for an abortion?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
Local matter that was investigated with no charges. The cretin filed a lawsuit that was thrown out.
It wasn't thrown out for lack of merit.


So, explain how a simple assault that resulted in no charges warrants a raid by dozens of FBI thugs and shackles?
What dozens?
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
103,207
Reaction score
31,745
Points
2,250
Location
Canis Latrans
The local criminal and civil courts would have looked at ALL of this--and they dismissed it. But not Biden's henchmen. Nope.
Umh...no. They did dismiss it for lack of merit.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top