B-Man Posted November 16, 2022 Posted November 16, 2022 You’d think it would be super easy to say NO, there weren’t FBI agents dressed as Trump supporters in the Capitol on J6, ya’ know? We’re certainly not experts on the matter but gosh, this isn’t a hard question to answer. Either there were agents and informants, or there weren’t. That seems simple too, eh? Release the tapes. Show Americans what really happened that day … Why won’t they?
BillsFanNC Posted November 16, 2022 Author Posted November 16, 2022 10 hours ago, B-Man said: You’d think it would be super easy to say NO, there weren’t FBI agents dressed as Trump supporters in the Capitol on J6, ya’ know? We’re certainly not experts on the matter but gosh, this isn’t a hard question to answer. Either there were agents and informants, or there weren’t. That seems simple too, eh? Release the tapes. Show Americans what really happened that day … Why won’t they? You see though it's not that simple. The FBI has informants participate in crimes all the time in order to entrap American citizens. It's what they do!
BillsFanNC Posted November 16, 2022 Author Posted November 16, 2022 But but but... Testimony under oath! They are just looking for the truth! 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 23 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: But but but... Testimony under oath! They are just looking for the truth! The ultimate question isn't whether or not the Agency had assets embedded in the crowd or inside leadership in targeted groups and organizations. Wray refusing to "just say no" was loud and clear. If the answer is yes, which most certainly appears to be the case, the fundamental questions are what was their purpose and mission, and did they participate in the planning and execution of violence committed on 1/6? And if Federal law enforcement was aware of the plans by specific individuals to commit acts of violence then why didn't they make arrests prior to the event and stop the violence from occurring on that day? Not a single member of the 1/6 committee appears eager to get answers, which in itself is reason to be cynical of their stated objectives. An implication is the FBI let it happen for specific purposes which look clearly political in nature. A justification to pursue political enemies in some "official" government setting leveraging the legal system for political purposes outside the normal venues of political discourse. If they let it happen what does that imply? Certainly non-professional behavior and failure to perform the duties and functions of law enforcement. I mean, if the FBI infiltrates an assassination plot is it standard practice to allow the assassin to kill the target and then arrest them for murder rather than arrest them before the killing and charge them with planning and conspiracy to commit the act which saves the life of the intended victim? 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 On 11/15/2022 at 1:56 PM, The Frankish Reich said: Yes, Kyle Becker, whoever the eff you are, I do have a question: Did the FBI assets you think were around sharpen flag poles and then use them as spears to attack the police? Did they beat on the Capitol Police with whatever they had access to as they tried to breach a barrier? Did they dress up like Halloween cavemen and prance around various Capitol chambers? Did they break windows and crush a police officer in a door? Amazing the powers of these informants. It’s like they hypnotized these trashy (“low class” in Trump’s own words) rioters into committing a whole variety of felonies. Fair points. The larger question imo was if FBI informants/undercover agents were aware of plans to lay siege to the Capital, what steps, if any, were put in place to minimize threat to human life, property and the seat of power? I’m not all that hung up on FBI personnel being in the mix one the day of the riot, or the use of paid informants in the days leading up to the event. It would be silly to assume those people didn’t exist given the history of law enforcement and use of such tactics. For God’s sake, Whitey Bulger was a glorified serial killer and the FBI used him as an informant and apparently was comfortable with everything/anything he did while so employed. There’s a fine line between information gathering and passively participating in pain and suffering and I’m not always sure that’s managed correctly. So, the question for me is if informants were deployed, what was their role on 1.6 and how did things spiral out of control so quickly? What signs were missed? Why wasn’t there more security? How are was the Capital overrun in minutes like a scene from a movie? it seems to me that in spite of the issues pointed out—people violently attacking others—the real story is how badly whomever was responsible for safeguarding the Capital was grossly incompetent or potentially complicit. On that note, it doesn’t seem like anyone in power is rushing to get to the bottom of THAT question.
BillsFanNC Posted November 17, 2022 Author Posted November 17, 2022 19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The ultimate question isn't whether or not the Agency had assets embedded in the crowd or inside leadership in targeted groups and organizations. Wray refusing to "just say no" was loud and clear. If the answer is yes, which most certainly appears to be the case, the fundamental questions are what was their purpose and mission, and did they participate in the planning and execution of violence committed on 1/6? And if Federal law enforcement was aware of the plans by specific individuals to commit acts of violence then why didn't they make arrests prior to the event and stop the violence from occurring on that day? Not a single member of the 1/6 committee appears eager to get answers, which in itself is reason to be cynical of their stated objectives. An implication is the FBI let it happen for specific purposes which look clearly political in nature. A justification to pursue political enemies in some "official" government setting leveraging the legal system for political purposes outside the normal venues of political discourse. If they let it happen what does that imply? Certainly non-professional behavior and failure to perform the duties and functions of law enforcement. I mean, if the FBI infiltrates an assassination plot is it standard practice to allow the assassin to kill the target and then arrest them for murder rather than arrest them before the killing and charge them with planning and conspiracy to commit the act which saves the life of the intended victim? And in answer to this sober, logical analysis you'll get.. Of course the FBI had informants embedded who lured people into committing crimes (crimes that threatened the very existence of our democracy they'll also tell you). It's what they do!
Doc Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 Should this be the first investigation for the Repub House?
All_Pro_Bills Posted November 17, 2022 Posted November 17, 2022 38 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: And in answer to this sober, logical analysis you'll get.. Of course the FBI had informants embedded who lured people into committing crimes (crimes that threatened the very existence of our democracy they'll also tell you). It's what they do! I've heard that too but I'd argue anyone that believes there's some standard FBI operating procedure that provides agents with autonomous authorization to perform such operations are misinformed. Here's a link to a declassified version of the "FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide". 'https://vault.fbi.gov/FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG)/FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) 2016 Version/FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) 2016 Version Part 01 of 02/view I wouldn't expect anyone to read the entire document but start on page 41 Authority of the Attorney General's Guidelines For Domestic FBI Operations. See on page 43 section 2.4.2 Conducting Terrorism and Counterterrorosim Operations. They discuss procedures for deviations which my read of it include domestic entrapment and manufacturing of crimes to produce arrests and charges. Deviations require higher approval. Operations of entrapment that receive approval to proceed would appear to be "legal" under the defined procedures. So if they did indeed run a domestic sting operations here who in the hierarchy signed off on that and why? Alas, another question that will never be asked or answered. But I'd say the trail leads to somewhere in the upper ranks of the FBI and DOJ during the last days of the Trump administration.
BillStime Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 10 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: ☝️😂 #winning
B-Man Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 Chris Wray is Smacked Down for Dodging Question on ‘FBI Informants Dressed as Trump Supporters’ on January 6 by Kyle Becker Chris Wray, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, appeared before the House of Representatives on Tuesday, and once again was grilled about the FBI’s knowledge of and participation in the events of January 6. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) pressed Wray about FBI informants amid the far-right extremists that had planned the Capitol siege in advance of the Electoral College proceedings that day. https://trendingpolitics.com/chris-wray-is-smacked-down-for-dodging-question-on-fbi-informants-dressed-as-trump-supporters-on-january-6-knab/ .
B-Man Posted November 18, 2022 Posted November 18, 2022 Pence blasts J6 committee, refuses to testify https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2022/11/17/pence-blasts-j6-committee-refuses-to-testify-and-liz-cheney-has-thoughts-n511713 .
B-Man Posted November 20, 2022 Posted November 20, 2022 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Could Trump have done more on January 6? Yes. Should he have done more? Yes. These tweets do not exonerate him from the things he could have done that day to quell the anger. But they do prove he was not using Twitter to foment violence and did make attempts to calm things. Liberals are so used to having their own words and agendas amplified on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, with Big Tech happily propping them up, that having Elon Musk come along and work toward parity has got them seething. They’d like nothing better than to have Donald Trump’s words from January 6 hidden forever, stricken from the record that only they are allowed to write. https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2022/11/19/donald-trumps-january-6-tweets-resurface-in-a-big-way-smack-libs-in-the-face-n661558 .
Doc Posted November 20, 2022 Posted November 20, 2022 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: Could Trump have done more on January 6? Yes. Should he have done more? Yes. These tweets do not exonerate him from the things he could have done that day to quell the anger. But they do prove he was not using Twitter to foment violence and did make attempts to calm things. Liberals are so used to having their own words and agendas amplified on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, with Big Tech happily propping them up, that having Elon Musk come along and work toward parity has got them seething. They’d like nothing better than to have Donald Trump’s words from January 6 hidden forever, stricken from the record that only they are allowed to write. https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2022/11/19/donald-trumps-january-6-tweets-resurface-in-a-big-way-smack-libs-in-the-face-n661558 . Done more how? He didn't tell them to break into the Capitol and instead told them to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." They obviously weren't listening to him then and wouldn't have listened later. 1
BillsFanNC Posted November 21, 2022 Author Posted November 21, 2022 Report delayed again? Good thing @ChiGoose was too cowardly to accept my bet when he insisted all the testimony would come out in September. We also now know the report, if it ever does come out, won't be complete since they aren't including anything about law enforcement on J6. Gee...who is shocked other than Chigoose? The sham committee wasn't political at all! 1
Recommended Posts