All_Pro_Bills Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 7 hours ago, Unforgiven said: https://www.yahoo.com/news/group-accused-plotting-kidnap-michigan-144724252.html The group accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer was riddled with FBI informants who took leading roles, according to BuzzFeed Some of the informants, including an Iraq war veteran, reportedly took leading roles in the scheme. For example, an Iraq war veteran informant "became so deeply enmeshed in a Michigan militant group" that he rose to second-in-command of the group, BuzzFeed reported. The war vet told members of the group to convene with other potential suspects and even paid for members' transportation to meetings, according to the news outlet. Another man who advised the militia group on where to place explosives and offered to get as many as needed was also an informant, BuzzFeed reported. New information on the extent of the FBI's involvement has raised questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy to take down the Democratic governor without their help. It gets better: A special agent with the FBI involved in the operation that resulted in a group of men being charged for allegedly plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was criminally charged on Monday in connection to a domestic incident. Richard Trask was arraigned in a Michigan court on one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, less than a murder charge, after a domestic incident with his wife on Sunday. He was subsequently released on a $10,000 recognizance bond, according to the Detroit News. I can't help but laugh. False Flags. A CIA overseas specialty also used by FBI and other domestic agencies. Not out of the question it was employed on 1/6. Considering about a dozen operatives that are known to the government but charged or arrested had roles at the Capitol event. And likely the objective of the 1/6 False Flag at the Capitol was devised to be the equivalent of the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany that provided the justification for consolidating power under the party. Only this time consolidation under the Democrats.
John Adams Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 44 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: False Flags. A CIA overseas specialty also used by FBI and other domestic agencies. Not out of the question it was employed on 1/6. Considering about a dozen operatives that are known to the government but charged or arrested had roles at the Capitol event. And likely the objective of the 1/6 False Flag at the Capitol was devised to be the equivalent of the Reichstag fire in Nazi Germany that provided the justification for consolidating power under the party. Only this time consolidation under the Democrats. You figured it all out, just from reading the Internet! 8 hours ago, Unforgiven said: https://www.yahoo.com/news/group-accused-plotting-kidnap-michigan-144724252.html The group accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer was riddled with FBI informants who took leading roles, according to BuzzFeed Some of the informants, including an Iraq war veteran, reportedly took leading roles in the scheme. For example, an Iraq war veteran informant "became so deeply enmeshed in a Michigan militant group" that he rose to second-in-command of the group, BuzzFeed reported. The war vet told members of the group to convene with other potential suspects and even paid for members' transportation to meetings, according to the news outlet. Another man who advised the militia group on where to place explosives and offered to get as many as needed was also an informant, BuzzFeed reported. New information on the extent of the FBI's involvement has raised questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy to take down the Democratic governor without their help. It gets better: A special agent with the FBI involved in the operation that resulted in a group of men being charged for allegedly plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was criminally charged on Monday in connection to a domestic incident. Richard Trask was arraigned in a Michigan court on one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, less than a murder charge, after a domestic incident with his wife on Sunday. He was subsequently released on a $10,000 recognizance bond, according to the Detroit News. I can't help but laugh. Do you think informants and agents are the same? Or that informants are good guys? Help me out. I’m trying to figure out just how stupid you are. I mean, I know it’s very stupid.
All_Pro_Bills Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Adams said: You figured it all out, just from reading the Internet! Do you think informants and agents are the same? Or that informants are good guys? Help me out. I’m trying to figure out just how stupid you are. I mean, I know it’s very stupid. Are you attempting sarcasm? Here's some facts. Maybe you are familiar with the concept of facts? Or maybe not? Or perhaps the concept of logical thinking. Let me illustrate a lesson in that subject below. Everybody knew there was going to be a big demonstration that day. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was dissatisfaction among the protesters with the election results. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was "talk" of disrupting or stopping the certification of results in the House. That's a fact. And therefore the risk and threat of violence was present. That would seem obvious to anyone paying attention. That's a fact. Everybody knows the the Capitol Police suspecting potential trouble requested the call up of National Guard to deploy at the Capitol. This request was made before and during the protest. 5 times this was requested. That's a fact. Everybody knows the Sargent at Arms who reports to the Speakers office rejected all requests for National Guard troops both before and during the attack. That's a fact. What we don't know is why the requests from the Capitol Police were rejected. And why the Guard wasn't called up in the face of obvious danger. But the House Speaker knows, the person heading the inquiry. Do you think she should provide some explanation? This seems like an important non-decision and it begs an answer. The problem is this is not a question the speaker would like to answer. Rather it appears to be a question the speaker does not want to answer. What are the implication of an honest answer? Now we get into molding these facts to define a theory. So one logical conclusion and theory might be there was a desire to let the violence happen. For one reason or another. We need the above question answered factually to disprove or confirm this theory. But we don't have that answer, yet. We can speculate but we do not know. So the theory is a valid theory that meets the criteria for being a theory. It produces a conclusion supported by facts that needs more facts to prove it true or false. It might be unpopular to many here but again, its also a fact nobody here can disprove it. They can ridicule and reject it or choose not to believe it for some reason. They can do the same to me personally. But none of that will prove it false. As the way to prove or disprove theories is to ask questions, gather facts, and apply those facts to see if they support or don't support the theory. That's why I also conclude 1/6 is equivalent to the Reichstag fire in Germany staged by the Nazi's. it aligns with the type of event, an attack on the seat of government power, the need for pretense followed by similar objectives. 1/6 was allowed to happen to create an excuse. Like the Nazi's used the fire as an excuse to neutralize their biggest political opponent which was the communists in Germany. In the case of 1/6 the Democrats are looking to neutralize their biggest threat which is 75 million Trump voters. So they followed the script created by the Nazi's. And why reinvent the wheel when it works? Edited July 23, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills 1
John Adams Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Are you attempting sarcasm? Here's some facts. Maybe you are familiar with the concept of facts? Or maybe not? Or perhaps the concept of logical thinking. Let me illustrate a lesson in that subject below. Everybody knew there was going to be a big demonstration that day. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was dissatisfaction among the protesters with the election results. That's a fact. Everybody knew there was "talk" of disrupting or stopping the certification of results in the House. That's a fact. And therefore the risk and threat of violence was present. That would seem obvious to anyone paying attention. That's a fact. Everybody knows the the Capitol Police suspecting potential trouble requested the call up of National Guard to deploy at the Capitol. This request was made before and during the protest. 5 times this was requested. That's a fact. Everybody knows the Sargent at Arms who reports to the Speakers office rejected all requests for National Guard troops both before and during the attack. That's a fact. What we don't know is why the requests from the Capitol Police were rejected. And why the Guard wasn't called up in the face of obvious danger. But the House Speaker knows, the person heading the inquiry. Do you think she should provide some explanation? This seems like an important non-decision and it begs an answer. The problem is this is not a question the speaker would like to answer. Rather it appears to be a question the speaker does not want to answer. What are the implication of an honest answer? Now we get into molding these facts to define a theory. So one logical conclusion and theory might be there was a desire to let the violence happen. For one reason or another. We need the above question answered factually to disprove or confirm this theory. But we don't have that answer, yet. We can speculate but we do not know. So the theory is a valid theory that meets the criteria for being a theory. It produces a conclusion supported by facts that needs more facts to prove it true or false. It might be unpopular to many here but again, its also a fact nobody here can disprove it. They can ridicule and reject it or choose not to believe it for some reason. They can do the same to me personally. But none of that will prove it false. As the way to prove or disprove theories is to ask questions, gather facts, and apply those facts to see if they support or don't support the theory. That's why I also conclude 1/6 is equivalent to the Reichstag fire in Germany staged by the Nazi's. it aligns with the type of event, an attack on the seat of government power, the need for pretense followed by similar objectives. 1/6 was allowed to happen to create an excuse. Like the Nazi's used the fire as an excuse to neutralize their biggest political opponent which was the communists in Germany. In the case of 1/6 the Democrats are looking to neutralize their biggest threat which is 75 million Trump voters. So they followed the script created by the Nazi's. And why reinvent the wheel when it works? mmm hmm, mmm hmm. Go on...
All_Pro_Bills Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 Just now, John Adams said: mmm hmm, mmm hmm. Go on... That's your best? Come on smarty. Shoot some holes in my theory. I want real feedback.
John Adams Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said: That's your best? Come on smarty. Shoot some holes in my theory. I want real feedback. Tell me more. How far does it go? What other events are like this? What's next?
All_Pro_Bills Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 14 minutes ago, John Adams said: Tell me more. How far does it go? What other events are like this? What's next? One step at a time my friend. Lets find out why Nancy didn't call the cops in the face of obvious danger from "insurrectionists". It will come out eventually.
John Adams Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 Just now, All_Pro_Bills said: One step at a time my friend. Lets find out why Nancy didn't call the cops in the face of obvious danger from "insurrectionists". It will come out eventually. And the vote counting?
Westside Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 18 hours ago, Beach said: was the left always this bad? was i blind to it before? These are not Democrats, they are radical left wing marxists who want the country to burn. 1
Westside Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 14 hours ago, Tiberius said: Gym Jorden is against that investigation too I bet What a scum bag Do you have a fan boy crush on congressman Jordan? I’m beginning to see your transgender crisis has reached an all time high? Maybe you should back off on those hormone pills.
SectionC3 Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: One step at a time my friend. Lets find out why Nancy didn't call the cops in the face of obvious danger from "insurrectionists". It will come out eventually. Probably because the cops were protecting her and it was their job to make the call.
B-Man Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, BillStime said: FTA: He told Garrett that while there needs to be a “fair and objective” investigation into the events of Jan. 6, he doesn't want either side politicizing the attack. “I don’t want the Republicans whitewashing what happened, I don’t want the Democrats trying to make political hay. I want to really have a real investigation into what happened,” he said.
BillStime Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 Just now, B-Man said: FTA: He told Garrett that while there needs to be a “fair and objective” investigation into the events of Jan. 6, he doesn't want either side politicizing the attack. “I don’t want the Republicans whitewashing what happened, I don’t want the Democrats trying to make political hay. I want to really have a real investigation into what happened,” he said. Larry is talking to you, Bonnie.
B-Man Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, B-Man said: FTA: he doesn't want either side politicizing the attack. , I don’t want the Democrats trying to make political hay. I want to really have a real investigation into what happened,” he said. Democrats, double standards, and the Capitol riot committee by Byron York House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she barred Representatives Jim Jordan and Jim Banks from the Capitol riot investigating committee because the two Republicans "had made statements and taken actions that I think would impact the integrity of the committee." Pelosi said Jordan and Banks also "made statements and took actions that just made it ridiculous to put them on such a committee seeking the truth." But what about Pelosi's Democratic choices for the committee? Might some of their statements and actions in the past impact the integrity of the committee? And have some of them said and done things that were so at odds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-democrats-double-standards-and-the-capitol-riot-committee Edited July 23, 2021 by B-Man
John Adams Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 32 minutes ago, B-Man said: Democrats, double standards, and the Capitol riot committee by Byron York House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she barred Representatives Jim Jordan and Jim Banks from the Capitol riot investigating committee because the two Republicans "had made statements and taken actions that I think would impact the integrity of the committee." Pelosi said Jordan and Banks also "made statements and took actions that just made it ridiculous to put them on such a committee seeking the truth." But what about Pelosi's Democratic choices for the committee? Might some of their statements and actions in the past impact the integrity of the committee? And have some of them said and done things that were so at odds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-democrats-double-standards-and-the-capitol-riot-committee Complaining about the House investigation when they spiked the bipartisan investigation on the terms they requested in the Senate is rich guano from the Republicans.
BillStime Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 46 minutes ago, B-Man said: Democrats, double standards, and the Capitol riot committee by Byron York House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she barred Representatives Jim Jordan and Jim Banks from the Capitol riot investigating committee because the two Republicans "had made statements and taken actions that I think would impact the integrity of the committee." Pelosi said Jordan and Banks also "made statements and took actions that just made it ridiculous to put them on such a committee seeking the truth." But what about Pelosi's Democratic choices for the committee? Might some of their statements and actions in the past impact the integrity of the committee? And have some of them said and done things that were so at odds https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-democrats-double-standards-and-the-capitol-riot-committee The GQP voted against the bi partisan committee - sorry this is all backfiring on the the GQP. Your keepers will do anything to manipulate and get the most hate out of you.
Beach Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 15 minutes ago, BillStime said: The GQP voted against the bi partisan committee - sorry this is all backfiring on the the GQP. Your keepers will do anything to manipulate and get the most hate out of you. i dont hate you
reddogblitz Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 6 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: What we don't know is why the requests from the Capitol Police were rejected. And why the Guard wasn't called up in the face of obvious danger. But the House Speaker knows, the person heading the inquiry. Do you think she should provide some explanation? This seems like an important non-decision and it begs an answer. The problem is this is not a question the speaker would like to answer. Rather it appears to be a question the speaker does not want to answer. What are the implication of an honest answer? To me this is the crux of the biscuit. Really the only part I care about. As you say everyone knew something was going to happen. Why the failure in security? Normally to try to take over America you need an F15 and a couple of nukes. But on this day a mob waltzed right in. Got into the chamber and the Speaker's office. I won't go as far as you on the fire thing, but Democrats have made and will continue to make massive hay off of it. A great fund raising tool. Not convinced democrats were not involved or at least complicit in the riot of 1/6/21. 1
Recommended Posts