Fool’s errand. Remember the Christmas market truck massacres in Europe?Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 1:58 pm“Becoming”cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:38 pmThe bottom line is did they or didn't they request this raw data from banks? Apparently Bank of America dutifully did as they were told. Apparently the FBI erased all that data received from their files. You appear to be more concerned about the source of the information. Does the request to profile all Americans trouble you at all? These requests even covered religious material that some people like the FBI might consider as literature based in extremism. It is no wonder more and more Americans believe their government is becoming " weaponized" This is where perception becomes reality when the government finds out you bought a hunting knife from Dicks Sporting Goods and then wants to know why you bought it.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 12:19 pmI googled and found lots of attention to the "allegation" from Fox, Washington Times, and my favorite, Epoch News.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 10:20 am I don't have a link but this blurb just broadcast on Fox News. Control yourself MD im watching on TV at the hospital. Surgery # 4 on my shoulder. There is an allegation that The US Treasury department has " requested" US banks to search their sales records at Dicks Sporting Goods, Cabela's Sporting Goods and Bass Masters with the key search words MAGA and Trump. This fishing expedition was requested without a search warrant that would include probable cause for doing so. Now that this has hit the mainstream media the folks at Treasury have " NO COMMENT" I wonder why? Apparently this is not the first time Treasury has made similar requests to US Banks. Now that is transparency at its finest.
Full disclosure the Trump administration made the same requests of Treasury. I would think that any bank would say where is your court ordered subpoena?? Then politely come back to us when when you have one. IMO it's rather disconcerting when the banks say " sure, no problem, we will get right on that"
I also found this at The Hill, which is the only one of the four with "high credibility" and "mostly factual" media bias ratings:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4414 ... nsactions/
Jim Jordan is asking for a former Treasury official in the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to do a transcribed interview based on this "allegation". That part of Treasury addresses a variety of financial crimes, money laundering and related crimes, including terrorism. Drug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking...etc.
What IS clear from the reporting is that the "alleged" request for information about specific types of transactions was specific to January 6, not some wide sweeping MAGA/Trump enemies list. Law enforcement related to Jan 6. I dunno about you but the mob certainly didn't have any reluctance in identifying themselves as Trump MAGA supporters...that's why they were there, that's who they thought they were fighting for (according to their own testimony).
And this effort began under the Trump Admin in the immediate aftermath of Jan 6, focused on potential threats on Inauguration Day. They were super worried about extremists, whether organized or lone actors, preparing for violent action.
The allegation by the Republicans, who acknowledge how it began, is that this effort extended beyond that imminent threat and that looking for extremists based on their political or religious expression should be out of bounds.
Interesting argument to be had about whether gun purchases or bomb materials purchases by those expressing extreme views should be at least explored for potential violent intentions. Would we not want such to be flagged for further investigation if the expressions were jihadist? If I'm referencing Allah in a communication about purchasing a gun or bomb materials? Or "from the river to the sea"? Obviously not all such is actually going to take violent action, but wouldn't we want them to be investigated and if possible prevented?
Here's the Republican House Committee (Republicans only) public statement so far.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-th ... terms-maga
Go google “cointelpro”…
Intent is the tricky part, not the specificity of tool.
Or will LLMs determine probability of intent, ala “Minority Report?”