CNN, Which Got an Inside Tip on FBI Stone Raid, Runs Bizarre Defense of Raid From CNN Ex-FBI Employee
There's no Russian collusion. But there's a whole lot of collusion between certain FBI figures and the media.
That's why CNN was there filming away when the FBI carried out a raid to arrest Roger Stone. It's why CNN now has a piece by James A. Gagliano, a CNN commentator formerly of the FBI who had called Trump a mob boss, defending the media/FBI raid.
The defense is the sort of thing that a blinkered big government bureaucratic organization would think is rational.
Because federal arrests typically occur at 6 a.m. local time. In other words, this is the usual course of action -- what our criminal justice system considers a reasonable hour, and designed to rouse groggy suspects who are less prepared to resist arrest. Furthermore, the arrest warrant for Stone was executed via a "knock and announce" tactic, which allows the subject a reasonable amount of time to respond to orders to open the door.
So there was concern that Stone would come out guns blazing? But apparently not that much concern, since they knocked.
Left unaddressed is the question of why all these resources needed to be wasted on a raid when Stone's lawyer could just have been told to have him turn himself in.
A few of the FBI agents could be seen in possession of mechanical breaching equipment -- sledge hammers, Halligan tools, hydraulic door-jamb spreaders -- related to the search warrant. Why? This may be due to concern that material evidence in the probe might be destroyed.
Because Stone was obviously going to start destroying things at the very last minute, rather than in the prior months of this train wreck of a coup posing as an investigation.
And finally, "surrender voluntarily" is the exception -- not the rule. Stone was charged in a seven-count felony indictment
Most of the other targets of the Mueller coup were allowed to surrender. Aside from everything else, this was a waste of resources whose only purpose was footage for CNN and promotion of the Mueller coup and its leadership.
As I explain in my Washington Examiner piece, much has also been made of the unnecessary adjective -- "armed" -- when describing FBI agents accused of "brandishing weapons." FBI agents were granted arrest powers and congressional authorization to carry firearms in 1934, after the murder of an agent during the Kansas City Massacre of 1933. Weapons are necessary tools for a dangerous job -- depriving the accused of their liberty and bringing them forward to face justice.
The number of FBI agents currently shot by Roger Stone stands at zero. Nobody in the FBI believed that Stone was going to come out shooting. No serious law enforcement professional would have any such notion. This was not about a threat, it was about theater.
Some have argued that 29 agents were "too many" for this type of apprehension. They have described Stone as a "white-collar criminal" and questioned why the robust law enforcement presence for one 66-year-old man. Arrests are complex operations that require anticipating any and every possible outcome and establishing a contingency action for it.
Like the possibility that Stone is a warlock who might be able to summon a herd of magical beasts to his defense.
What exactly could Roger Stone have done that would require 29 agents to deal with the threat?
Here's the general rule of thumb: Arrest one, bring 10. Arrest 10, bring 100. Overwhelming numbers remove the fight-or-flight instincts in the cornered or desperate.
Arrest one old guy accused of making fun of Hillary Clinton. Bring 29.
These are not luxuries; they are a necessity. And for those who scoff that these types of arrests are not "dangerous," it has been my experience that arrests of "benign" figures -- white-collar fraudsters, corrupt politicians, even clergymen accused in a sex scandal -- are often the ones with the most to lose, the ones who pose the biggest threat to themselves or others.
Can we get a breakdown of the number of law enforcement officers shot by white collar criminals in arrest situations versus gang bangers?
In totalitarian leftist states, a point is reached when no one believes the authorities anymore. And the only response to their obviously transparent lies is contempt and mockery.