Another video where, the more any one person talks, the more I dislike them.

I didn't see any specific threats from this lunatic lady's post. Honestly, not much different than a lot of posts on F16 wishing harm to groups of people. I'm at work and can't listen to the audio. Did she make a specific threat or just hoping for the death of Jews and others? Seems like the FBI coming to have a "chat" was unwarranted. Also, the few encounters I've had with FBI agents they've always been well dressed, polite and professional. I guess standards have slipped.

what she's posting, apparently:

Rolla Abdeljawad calls for U.S. troops to come home in caskets and calls for the heads of Zionists (aka 95+% of Jews globally).

These are tangible threats and the FBI had every right to pay her a visit.

You're on the wrong side of this one. pic.twitter.com/yzK7LZ2pMq

— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) March 29, 2024

Years ago I was watching the movie In the Line of Fire in which Clint Eastwood portrays a Secret Service agent. I had the VCR hooked up to the stereo to get better sound out of it.

One of my brothers called. I should have paused the tape, but I let it keep playing.

Then the scene where Clint Eastwood knocks on a door very loudly and shouts "Secret Service! Open the door!"

My brother suddenly got real quiet and almost whispered in astonishment, "What's going on there?"

I thought about recording that bit and playing it while talking to telephone sales people and then then telling them that I had to run.

sanangelo said:

---

what she's posting, apparently:

Rolla Abdeljawad calls for U.S. troops to come home in caskets and calls for the heads of Zionists (aka 95+% of Jews globally).

These are tangible threats and the FBI had every right to pay her a visit.

You're on the wrong side of this one. pic.twitter.com/yzK7LZ2pMq

— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) March 29, 2024

---

Needs to be deported

Great story Eric. Have you considered recording the "Keep the change, you filthy animal" from the film Angels With Dirty Faces, ?

Anyone can buy FBI shirts on Amazon for less than $20.

Guys...they didn't say WHICH FBI they were from.

They are the

Face
Book
Investigators

Every single poster here is wrong (exception for LeonardSkinner!), no exaggeration.

Guarantee this lady posted more than those tweets. An actual, potentially credible threat warrants a visit.

They also showed their creds/ identification when they first made contact. She had her chance to read them, she just wanted to film the creds and they're under no obligation to have pics taken of their creds.

You can run the plate if you want to, but it's not coming back to the govt.

Oklahoma tag JPP 958 is registered to the Service Oklahoma agency

— thought_crimes (@JimmyBobAdkins) March 29, 2024

In other words, OK won't tell us who the plates trace to. Sounds like the Feds!

As I said above, based on the above Tweets it's likely not enough to warrant a visit. But anyone here surprised is this lady said much worse?

Seems like two plausible scenarios! 1) FBI overstep or 2) Crazy Muslim that needed a visit.

eric76 said:

---

Years ago I was watching the movie In the Line of Fire in which Clint Eastwood portrays a Secret Service agent. I had the VCR hooked up to the stereo to get better sound out of it.

One of my brothers called. I should have paused the tape, but I let it keep playing.

Then the scene where Clint Eastwood knocks on a door very loudly and shouts "Secret Service! Open the door!"

My brother suddenly got real quiet and almost whispered in astonishment, "What's going on there?"

I thought about recording that bit and playing it while talking to telephone sales people and then then telling them that I had to run.

---

Several years ago FBI agents came to my door. They were interviewing everyone on my street during a murder investigation of the death of a police officer. My son was in the living room with the TV up very loud. Just as I opened the door a bunch of gunshots rang out from the TV. The agents paused for a second and we all laughed it off. They wanted to know if I had any cameras in my front and back yards. Weeks later it was determined that the cop committed suicide and faked the crime.

InfantryAg said:

---

Every single poster here is wrong (exception for LeonardSkinner!), no exaggeration.

Guarantee this lady posted more than those tweets. An actual, potentially credible threat warrants a visit.

They also showed their creds/ identification when they first made contact. She had her chance to read them, she just wanted to film the creds and they're under no obligation to have pics taken of their creds.

You can run the plate if you want to, but it's not coming back to the govt.

---

Assuming that those guys actually were FBI, two things stand out to me.

1. They are not remotely dressed as I would expect FBI making a house call to be. I'm not saying that they need to be in suits and ties, but at least have a semblance of professionalism in your attire. If wearing jeans, have a jacket on. Or have khackis and a sport shirt. Business casual. Think Gibbs & NCIS. Them looking like they're ready to stick the boat in the water didn't help their credibility.

2. And regarding their credentials, flashing the ID like on TV doesn't cut it. Therefore, their response of "we've already shown them to you" is woefully inadequate. Googling the field office phone number is even worse.

To be credible, the proper response to her should have been along the lines of: "Ma'am, I'll be happy to give you a closer look at my creditials. However, I must ask that you stop filming and put your phone down while you examine them. Then you can begin recording again." And, when asked for the field office number, he should have had a business card at the ready to hand to her with the name of the SAIC if he didn't want his name on it.

The appearance and responses of those guys to her did nothing to inspire confidence in the FBI and the job they were trying to do. A very poor reflection of the local field office.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Free speech is under attack. FB, working with the FBI, cools free speech.

Not sure what this lady posted and why Fb wouldn't just delete it. But they deleted it and turned her in.

It's pretty obvious she didn't make threats. They didn't show up with guns out like that one fella they killed for a Fb post.

How does the left defend this?

Joe Biden's DOJ pic.twitter.com/XoxI5mhGFB

— Joel Fischer 🇺🇸 (@realJoelFischer) March 28, 2024

---

F u. Get off my property.

jrdauAssuming that those guys actually were FBI, two things stand out to me. said:

---

1. They are not remotely dressed as I would expect FBI making a house call to be. I'm not saying that they need to be in suits and ties, but at least have a semblance of professionalism in your attire. If wearing jeans, have a jacket on. Or have khackis and a sport shirt. Business casual. Think Gibbs & NCIS. Them looking like they're ready to stick the boat in the water didn't help their credibility.

2. And regarding their credentials, flashing the ID like on TV doesn't cut it. Therefore, their response of "we've already shown them to you" is woefully inadequate. Googling the field office phone number is even worse.

To be credible, the proper response to her should have been along the lines of: "Ma'am, I'll be happy to give you a closer look at my creditials. However, I must ask that you stop filming and put your phone down while you examine them. Then you can begin recording again." And, when asked for the field office number, he should have had a business card at the ready to hand to her with the name of the SAIC if he didn't want his name on it.

The appearance and responses of those guys to her did nothing to inspire confidence in the FBI and the job they were trying to do. A very poor reflection of the local field office.

---

Not defending what they're wearing but agents are given lots of leeway and for most things just blend in. Walking around in a suit makes you stand out in most places; Suits are not the norm anymore, but are worn when appropriate. Suits actually throw some people off and make them stand-offish. SAC can also make restrictions. Overall agents are not as "professional" looking during daily activities, but neither is society.

We don't know that they just flashed it. Most people don't actually take the time to read and verify them anyways. But I agree in principle, with re-showing them. They could tell this was a dead-end though and so were ready to move on and away. That's also why they gave the main number, obligatory, but a waste of time.

Not knowing the number to the main public line is normal. I doubt their business cards have that number on them. And the SAC or ASAC numbers aren't going to be given out to normal people. Desk/ cell phone numbers are for work associates, just like most businesses. There are public numbers for a reason.

InfantryAg said:

---

jrdauAssuming that those guys actually were FBI, two things stand out to me. said:

---

1. They are not remotely dressed as I would expect FBI making a house call to be. I'm not saying that they need to be in suits and ties, but at least have a semblance of professionalism in your attire. If wearing jeans, have a jacket on. Or have khackis and a sport shirt. Business casual. Think Gibbs & NCIS. Them looking like they're ready to stick the boat in the water didn't help their credibility.

2. And regarding their credentials, flashing the ID like on TV doesn't cut it. Therefore, their response of "we've already shown them to you" is woefully inadequate. Googling the field office phone number is even worse.

To be credible, the proper response to her should have been along the lines of: "Ma'am, I'll be happy to give you a closer look at my creditials. However, I must ask that you stop filming and put your phone down while you examine them. Then you can begin recording again." And, when asked for the field office number, he should have had a business card at the ready to hand to her with the name of the SAIC if he didn't want his name on it.

The appearance and responses of those guys to her did nothing to inspire confidence in the FBI and the job they were trying to do. A very poor reflection of the local field office.

---

Not defending what they're wearing but agents are given lots of leeway and for most things just blend in. Walking around in a suit makes you stand out in most places; Suits are not the norm anymore, but are worn when appropriate. Suits actually throw some people off and make them stand-offish. SAC can also make restrictions. Overall agents are not as "professional" looking during daily activities, but neither is society.

We don't know that they just flashed it. Most people don't actually take the time to read and verify them anyways. But I agree in principle, with re-showing them. They could tell this was a dead-end though and so were ready to move on and away. That's also why they gave the main number, obligatory, but a waste of time.

Not knowing the number to the main public line is normal. I doubt their business cards have that number on them. And the SAC or ASAC numbers aren't going to be given out to normal people. Desk/ cell phone numbers are for work associates, just like most businesses. There are public numbers for a reason.

---

We're mostly in agreement, so don't take this as a shot. But if I'm advising these guys - especially in the current environment, a couple of things you stated stand out that should be clear...

I get that agents are now given leeway on dress, and this isn't the 60's FBI. That's why I said in the original post that I agreed that suits were too much. And I also don't have a problem with their attire if they are doing non-public facing investigative work. BUT, when they are going to someone's house, dress the part. It adds credibility. And I reiterate that could be jeans and a sport coat, or slacks and a dress shirt. Not a suit. But not jeans, tennies and an untucked Academy shirt, either.

Regarding the credentials, these guys knew they were on camera, so don't argue. Offer to show them again, and state that showing them on camera is out of bounds. That shifts the onus onto the homeowner to either be reasonable and comply with the request, or to be unnecessarily arguentative. Missed opportunity. Plus it's incredibly reasonable to assume that an imposter can easily rent a suv, forge some documents, and claim to be FBI. If I had someone just show up at my door claiming to be FBI, - especially looking like these guys did - I will want to review their creds, and then confirm with the local field office that they are who they say they are before I have a conversation with them. Two step verification applies here - especially when they just show up at her house.

Unfortunately, the FBI has squandered most, if not all, of the historical credibility that they once had due to recent senior level bias, unequal treatment of the public, and failure to follow proper procedures. It sucks that the field agents have to deal with this, now, but it is what it is.

At the end of the day, this lady's knee-jerk reaction should have been enough to warrant that they should keep an eye on her. She shouldn't have been as combative as she was. That said, the actions and the appearance of the agents don't lend to a credible reason to justify keeping that eye on her.

Quote:

---

At the end of the day, this lady's knee-jerk reaction should have been enough to warrant that they should keep an eye on her. She shouldn't have been as combative as she was.

---

I have to disagree with you here.


Assume for a moment that this lady did nothing wrong. She SHOULD be combative!! The damn federal government is investigating her for exercising her rights!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

At the end of the day, this lady's knee-jerk reaction should have been enough to warrant that they should keep an eye on her. She shouldn't have been as combative as she was.

---

I have to disagree with you here.


Assume for a moment that this lady did nothing wrong. She SHOULD be combative!! The damn federal government is investigating her for exercising her rights!

---

We have to assume she has done nothing wrong. But she apparently has posted messages advocating for genocide of Jews, as well as advocating for US soldiers to be killed.

Under free speech it technically may not be illegal, but it is advocating for violence against others. It falls under suspicious activity. Just like certain financial transactions may spur a SAR, and may not be themselves illegal, but are an indication that the activity could be a part of something bigger, thus warranting investigation.
One can post advocacy for their position while not calling for the death of others. It's a topic for another thread, but that's the whole problem with the Gaza position. It's not about living in peace. It's about eliminating Israel.

Part of the problem in Gaza is there is a very fuzzy line between innocents and combatants. Many "innocents" are actually allowing their residence, school, hospital, etc. to be used as staging grounds for the combatants. And many were first on the street to greet the captured Israelis with stones, kicks, saliva, etc. So they're not so innocent after all. I really don't want to have to navigate that line in our country. But the fact remains is there's a line there. And it looks like she could be perioulsly close to crossing it.

Not much of an "investigation" they did!

Im Gipper said:

---

Not much of an "investigation" they did!

---

I 100% agree. That looked more like a poor intimidation attempt than any sort of investigation.

Even with a SAR, the subject is not supposted to be aware that they are under investigation. As I am drawing a parallel with this case, I'm thinking that what would have been appropriate if someone thought that her posts warranted a follow-up would have been a period of surveillance of the house to see if there was any additional activity - comings and goings - that warrant suspicion. That's really all they needed to do if they were concerned.

This was more like someone deciding she made some untoward posts, and paying her a visit to rattle her cage a bit. Bush league all around.

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

I don't think that's the FBI

---

FBI Actions:

People are now outraged on social media because the FBI went to the home of a Muslim woman named Rolla Abdeljawad and asked her about her Facebook posts. People questioned whether they were really FBI and then attacked these agents doing their jobs. Let’s clarify a… pic.twitter.com/QEoapjonOl

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) March 29, 2024

InfantryAg said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

At the end of the day, this lady's knee-jerk reaction should have been enough to warrant that they should keep an eye on her. She shouldn't have been as combative as she was.

---

I have to disagree with you here.

Assume for a moment that this lady did nothing wrong. She SHOULD be combative!! The damn federal government is investigating her for exercising her rights!

---

We have to assume she has done nothing wrong. But she apparently has posted messages advocating for genocide of Jews, as well as advocating for US soldiers to be killed.

Under free speech it technically may not be illegal, but it is advocating for violence against others. It falls under suspicious activity. Just like certain financial transactions may spur a SAR, and may not be themselves illegal, but are an indication that the activity could be a part of something bigger, thus warranting investigation.
One can post advocacy for their position while not calling for the death of others. It's a topic for another thread, but that's the whole problem with the Gaza position. It's not about living in peace. It's about eliminating Israel.

Part of the problem in Gaza is there is a very fuzzy line between innocents and combatants. Many "innocents" are actually allowing their residence, school, hospital, etc. to be used as staging grounds for the combatants. And many were first on the street to greet the captured Israelis with stones, kicks, saliva, etc. So they're not so innocent after all. I really don't want to have to navigate that line in our country. But the fact remains is there's a line there. And it looks like she could be perioulsly close to crossing it.

---

Completely disagree.

What is the crime? What was posted as her tweets in no way is suspicious of any actual crime, and it's First Amendment protected activity. SARs are indicative of a crime and warrant follow up. SARs are also do not encroach on someone's civil rights.

Distasteful posts, with no reasonable suspicion of a crime, would be a huge waste of time to even have a consensual encounter. She posted something else more nefarious. If facebook actually reported her, you can be sure it was bad, they don't like sharing info without a subpoena or a warrant.

---

To answer your question, there is no crime. Just as making a $250K bank transaction isn't a crime, but it will trigger a SAR under certain conditions, potentially putting someone on a watch list.

I am totally assuming that is what happened here with her posts. I readily admit I could be wrong, and she posted something much more nefarious. But then again, if she had, would the FBI be sending the C team along with a new recruit to "ask some questions"?

TexasAggie73 said:

---

Anyone can buy FBI shirts on Amazon for less than $20.

---

The t-shirts I liked were the "Federal Witness Protection Program" on the front and "You haven't seen me" on the back.

From the Twittter guy Krassenstein

Quote:

---

The FBI has a duty to stop any possible crime before it takes place.

---

Do they?

Has anyone on F16 had a visit from the feds?


does online grooming count?

Quote:

---

Has anyone on F16 had a visit from the feds?

---

Security clearance for my wife and others

Ramp check from FAA while pre-flighting small plane

Was on a youth sports board with the FBI agent who later investigated the claims of racism and racial profiling concerning the Tulia drug cases.

This was after pardons had been issued, so the people who had been convicted could tell the truth with no penalty. He found out that the arrests were all legitimate, and that many cases the amount of drugs was under-reported.

I'm sure you all heard those reports blasted over the media, just like the original accusations. Halle Berry never did make that movie, I wonder why?

Isn't that the one from "Home Alone"?

Muy said:

---

The middle guy in maroon is a ****, the guy on the left is an Uncle Rico Billy Badass, and the blonde recruit is thinking "I went to law school for this stupid *****!"

---

once had a tenant who worked for some gov agency or military, and the FBI showed up at my door. They said this renter was up for promotion and they were vetting him, and they wanted me to let them in his house to look around.

the agents were friendly and professional, suits ties, and nobody looked like a roofing contractor or swat team.
20 years ago

jrdaustin said:

---

We're mostly in agreement, so don't take this as a shot. But if I'm advising these guys - especially in the current environment, a couple of things you stated stand out that should be clear...

I get that agents are now given leeway on dress, and this isn't the 60's FBI. That's why I said in the original post that I agreed that suits were too much. And I also don't have a problem with their attire if they are doing non-public facing investigative work. BUT, when they are going to someone's house, dress the part. It adds credibility. And I reiterate that could be jeans and a sport coat, or slacks and a dress shirt. Not a suit. But not jeans, tennies and an untucked Academy shirt, either.

Regarding the credentials, these guys knew they were on camera, so don't argue. Offer to show them again, and state that showing them on camera is out of bounds. That shifts the onus onto the homeowner to either be reasonable and comply with the request, or to be unnecessarily arguentative. Missed opportunity. Plus it's incredibly reasonable to assume that an imposter can easily rent a suv, forge some documents, and claim to be FBI. If I had someone just show up at my door claiming to be FBI, - especially looking like these guys did - I will want to review their creds, and then confirm with the local field office that they are who they say they are before I have a conversation with them. Two step verification applies here - especially when they just show up at her house.

Unfortunately, the FBI has squandered most, if not all, of the historical credibility that they once had due to recent senior level bias, unequal treatment of the public, and failure to follow proper procedures. It sucks that the field agents have to deal with this, now, but it is what it is.

At the end of the day, this lady's knee-jerk reaction should have been enough to warrant that they should keep an eye on her. She shouldn't have been as combative as she was. That said, the actions and the appearance of the agents don't lend to a credible reason to justify keeping that eye on her.

---

Missed this post, but yes, in agreement with almost everything.

The one thing I'm not in agreement with, based on the info available, is the need to keep an eye on her. Crimes should be investigated, not people. That is what is going on with Trump now, he's being investigated so they can find crimes; Completely wrong.

Knowing there's more to what she posted though...

This video she posted is the same as all the fake racist claims we here. She's playing the victim and most here bought it based on the "evidence" she posted.

jrdaustin said:

---

To answer your question, there is no crime. Just as making a $250K bank transaction isn't a crime, but it will trigger a SAR under certain conditions, potentially putting someone on a watch list.

I am totally assuming that is what happened here with her posts. I readily admit I could be wrong, and she posted something much more nefarious. But then again, if she had, would the FBI be sending the C team along with a new recruit to "ask some questions"?

---

SARs are reasonable suspicion of a crime. They are indicators of financial crimes to include money laundering and organized criminal activity.

The posts shown from this lady had no crime nexus. If that's all she posted there would be no reasonable suspicion of a crime.

What she didn't show had a nexus, which is why she didn't show it.

jrdaustin said:

---

Assuming that those guys actually were FBI, two things stand out to me.

1. They are not remotely dressed as I would expect FBI making a house call to be. I'm not saying that they need to be in suits and ties, but at least have a semblance of professionalism in your attire. If wearing jeans, have a jacket on. Or have khackis and a sport shirt. Business casual. Think Gibbs & NCIS. Them looking like they're ready to stick the boat in the water didn't help their credibility.

---

We all know how FBI agents dress.