Trump targets Atheists as domestic terrorists

[GenesisNemesis]

What happens when you combine section 1 and section 8:

These domestic terrorists use violence or
the threat of violence to advance political and social agendas, including opposition to law and
immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders;
adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity;
support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on
family, religion, and morality; and an elevation of violence to achieve policy outcomes, such as
political assassinations.[^2] The recent attacks fueled by these agendas and ideological
frameworks require a robust response. The JTTFs shall prioritize the investigation of such
conduct.

This blurb from section 1 is very broad under a lens of subjective interpretation by citizens
trying to get their money:

Further, because information from within an organization is often necessary to effectively
dismantle large, criminal enterprises, the FBI shall establish a cash reward system for
information that leads to the successful identification and arrest of individuals in the leadership
of domestic terrorist organizations that conspire with others to commit violations of the
provisions of law listed in section 2 of this guidance or other offenses against the United States.

MAGAs think that ALL Democrats have at least some of those ideologies. In fact, be nice to immigrants
through a MAGA lens is open borders. Taking a cell phone documentation of ICE beating someone is
DOXing to them. Saying FAFO or Don't Tread on Me or I will defend myself is _a_threat_of_violence.

The little footnote at the end about free speech rights not being the only thing leading to an arrest
is belied by the cash reward system of citizens and fake journalists provocateurs who will by definition
be the __additional__ __evidence__ besides the speech.

Here's an example. Consider Unknown Soldier previously of this forum. He claimed we were an
atheist (read: anti-Christian) death cult. Okay fine, so, so far that's just a free speech issue. Now
combine it with his idiotic interpretation he was being threatened by a statement about someone
defending themselves. *BAM* We are all potential terrorists. Now Unknown Soldier due to his
need to get some cash money can go call the hotline. They then will supply warrants.

That hypothetical is merely intended to show how overly broad their tactics are. While they could
end up arresting some people who are planning to do some violence, the vast majority of investigations
will lead to innocent persons but that could then lead to trumped up charges or enforcing things
not necessarily enforced in the past. In some sense, this is worse than COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO had
agent provocateurs supplied by the federal government. This is different because it is calling on
all right-wing citizens to act as Gestapo informants for cash money.

Yup, and this government is filled with people like Unknown Soldier, who are incapable of making a simple distinction between atheism, anti-Christianity, and unable to comprehend that these things aren't a threat to the U.S.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Effectively the Memo is asking the FBI to 'throw the book' at people the Administration has deemed as domestic terrorists. If the FBI went too hard in this direction, the people defending those arrested would be working for the ACLU.

Federal attorneys hate losing cases. I'd file this under 'easier said than done'. It certainly isn't a good direction for the Executive Branch to be moving in, but it isn't as simple as throwing the book at a suspect. Grand juries are not as likely to submit to incarcerating some person in the gray area of a mild offense versus an actual domestic terrorist.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I still think we're pretty far down the checklist. We're on the checklist, but it's not a priority because we're difficult to identify. We're not all POC, so we can't be ID'd in any way except by smashing through, grabbing website user info and then subsequently going through email monikers and then going to e.g. Google and getting them to release their info. That'd be a lot of work and it'd be an oversized allocation of resources and therefore would be quite expensive.

I probably worded that poorly but I hope the gist is comprehensible.

Anyway, being ratted on by friends, acquaintances, and family is something to be afraid of. I can think of several people I know who would readily let the Trump government know I'm a hell-bound SOB.

On another note, I wonder if Trump is an atheist by way of simply having zero interest in any intellectual endeavor. It's quite the stretch to believe that the guy prays to Jebus because then he'd have to acknowledge a superior power. I'm sure there's a distinction between the type of non-believer that Trump is and those who identify as atheists, but I'm too apathetic to look it up.

 

[Toni]

You can be Christian in their brand if you don’t like brown people and want to pay girls for sex.

You mean rape girls. Girls are juvenile human females. They are unable to consent to sex and it is illegal to employ minors as prostitutes which is what those you pay or are supposed to pay for sex are, whether they are male or female.

 

[scombrid]

That’s why I put girls in the statement between pay and for. MAGA Christians think that payment equals consent even when it is girls getting paid. MAGA Christian is a nationalist brand that embraces anti-Christians like Trump and Andrew Tate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I still think we're pretty far down the checklist. We're on the checklist, but it's not a priority because we're difficult to identify. We're not all POC, so we can't be ID'd in any way except by smashing through, grabbing website user info and then subsequently going through email monikers and then going to e.g. Google and getting them to release their info. That'd be a lot of work and it'd be an oversized allocation of resources and therefore would be quite expensive.

It's easier than that. Everything is on the cloud these days and there are two primary cloud services: google and amazon. Bezos will do anything for Trump and so they'll comply easily to access of info when there are warrants. The memo is saying they will investigate these things easily under the guise of terrorism, probably incorrectly invoking the USA PATRIOT Act or Insurrection Act or even just the executive orders. So they get in through the backend and get access to email addresses that people used to register.

Now all that was the hardest part. It's all downhill work from there. Our email addresses are inside people searches and residential databases such as truthfinder.com and whitepages.com, among others. In fact, many of our social media user id's have been linked to our identities. In any case, using such services ANYONE can figure out your DOB, residence, phone number etc from your email address (usually). Now law enforcement has MORE ACCESS to MORE INFO than these publicly available searches that anyone can use.

The reason I know about this stuff is from doing genetic genealogy, believe it or not. You can often find out the identity of people using their id's from ancestry websites and/or a series of clues. While this is often one-off work to investigate an individual, I am familiar publicly available vendors that have the residential/social media/email/phone info bundled because I have used those services as part of investigations for people wondering who their immediate relatives/parents/etc are.

 

[crazyfingers]

Effectively the Memo is asking the FBI to 'throw the book' at people the Administration has deemed as domestic terrorists. If the FBI went too hard in this direction, the people defending those arrested would be working for the ACLU.

Federal attorneys hate losing cases. I'd file this under 'easier said than done'. It certainly isn't a good direction for the Executive Branch to be moving in, but it isn't as simple as throwing the book at a suspect. Grand juries are not as likely to submit to incarcerating some person in the gray area of a mild offense versus an actual domestic terrorist.

Trump and Bondi will get their giggles just harassing innocent liberal groups. And when grand juries don't cooperate they'll find a different grand jury that does. I don't think that Trump and Bondi care if they lose the cases in court if they cost liberal groups big $$ to defend themselves against Trumped up charges.

 

[southernhybrid]

They mean Christianity the right wing nationalist brand. Otherwise they’d have to label dear leader as an anti-Christian terrorist based on the lifestyle he lives and promotes. Andrew Tate is one of their guardian angels.

This is true. I have many good, liberal or moderate Christian friends who are fearful that the White Christian Nationalists are trying to make the US into a crazy, extremist Christian theocracy. Most of the Christians who supported or still support the felon are the evangelicals. Even among them, there are exceptions like my late mother who had a fit when she was in the early stages of dementia and I told her that Trump was president. The was during his first term. She told me I had ruined her day.

I'm not scared of this, as people are falling away from Trump, even some republicans in Congress are getting a bit of courage. He is losing the support of the Latino and Black vote that he had, so calm the fuck down. I'm more concerned about the future generations dealing with climate change, then I am about trump, who may not even be alive much longer or able to stand upright and complete a sentence.

Trump refers to any group that criticizes him as terrorists, including members of Congress, so this just more Trump pontificating his madness.

The links say nothing about atheists, that I could find. They say anti-christian. Every atheist who I personally know supports the freedom of religion and we all have Christian friends, so I don't see that as being anti-christian. We may think that the beliefs are fairly tales but that's not the same as being anti Christian. In fact, I even have friendly acquaintances who are evangelicals who voted and in some cases still support Trump.

I tried to post this much earlier but the site wasn't working. I'm not a frightened little scardy cat. And, my evangelical friendly acquaintances even like me and they've given up trying to save me.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I still think we're pretty far down the checklist. We're on the checklist, but it's not a priority because we're difficult to identify. We're not all POC, so we can't be ID'd in any way except by smashing through, grabbing website user info and then subsequently going through email monikers and then going to e.g. Google and getting them to release their info. That'd be a lot of work and it'd be an oversized allocation of resources and therefore would be quite expensive.

It's easier than that. Everything is on the cloud these days and there are two primary cloud services: google and amazon. Bezos will do anything for Trump and so they'll comply easily to access of info when there are warrants. The memo is saying they will investigate these things easily under the guise of terrorism, probably incorrectly invoking the USA PATRIOT Act or Insurrection Act or even just the executive orders. So they get in through the backend and get access to email addresses that people used to register.

Now all that was the hardest part. It's all downhill work from there. Our email addresses are inside people searches and residential databases such as truthfinder.com and whitepages.com, among others. In fact, many of our social media user id's have been linked to our identities. In any case, using such services ANYONE can figure out your DOB, residence, phone number etc from your email address (usually). Now law enforcement has MORE ACCESS to MORE INFO than these publicly available searches that anyone can use.

The reason I know about this stuff is from doing genetic genealogy, believe it or not. You can often find out the identity of people using their id's from ancestry websites and/or a series of clues. While this is often one-off work to investigate an individual, I am familiar publicly available vendors that have the residential/social media/email/phone info bundled because I have used those services as part of investigations for people wondering who their immediate relatives/parents/etc are.

Good points, but I still think they'd be looking for the needle in the haystack. They'd first have to identify a likely "suspect" and then go after them. Also, Bezos has a board of directors and shareholders to answer to. If/when people realized that they could be ID'd and suffer consequences for that, Amazon would likely see a lot less traffic, which is bad for business.

I think you've made some great points, but I still think we're pretty far down the list of people they'd like to see hang.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Effectively the Memo is asking the FBI to 'throw the book' at people the Administration has deemed as domestic terrorists. If the FBI went too hard in this direction, the people defending those arrested would be working for the ACLU.

Federal attorneys hate losing cases. I'd file this under 'easier said than done'. It certainly isn't a good direction for the Executive Branch to be moving in, but it isn't as simple as throwing the book at a suspect. Grand juries are not as likely to submit to incarcerating some person in the gray area of a mild offense versus an actual domestic terrorist.

Trump and Bondi will get their giggles just harassing innocent liberal groups. And when grand juries don't cooperate they'll find a different grand jury that does. I don't think that Trump and Bondi care if they lose the cases in court if they cost liberal groups big $$ to defend themselves against Trumped up charges.

The grand jury thing is almost wholly ineffective. There's a saying in the legal profession: you can indict a ham sandwich. That's because the prosecutor can put their case before a jury without argument from the defendant. A defendant or witness may testify but they can't have a lawyer present.

The term "grand jury" makes it sound like an especially important legal proceeding, but it's just one side getting their day while the other is denied it.

The idea is to present evidence that shows it's worth the time and money to indict a party for X charges, but I think it's a farce. I brought this up in law school and the judge teaching the class looked at me like I had two heads. I've never been involved in a GJ proceeding so maybe I don't understand it. But on its face, it's counterintuitive with respect to how due process is supposed to work.