Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Would it be better for them to reveal sources and methods in an open, televised hearing?

Or is it better if the FBI *didn’t* have any informants or undercover folks reporting on groups that, IDK, literally overwhelmed the police and broke into the seat of government trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power

What tac said above is pretty evident, and I for one am glad…it’s literally the FBI’s job to do that kind of stuff.

IMHO Proud Boys, III Percenters, Neo-Nazis, no-shitter revolutionary commies, domestic environmental terrorists, cartel hombres, anarchists, ISIS wannabes, etc., run back to your holes, fuck off, and check your 6, someone is probably wearing a wire.

Meh...you are dodging the issue or maybe you didn't watch what happened?  Of course we want the FBI chasing these idiots back to their caves, but we are still a country of law and some VERY shady shit happened.

"How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6?" Cruz asked. Sanborn said in response that she could not discuss "the specifics of sources and methods" of the FBI.  Ok, valid discussing sources and methods is something we have to protect, although I don't think it was a big secret that the FBI had people in the crowd. 

HOWEVER:

Cruz then broadened his question by asking if any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot.

"Sir, I can’t answer that" Seriously?!?!?!  You think this is a source and method?

Cruz then asked if any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6. When he received the same answer, he asked if any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6.

"Sir, I can’t answer that."  Come on brother, you have to know this is wrong.

I am really curious to hear how you think the is a legal method that needs to be protected?

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I am really curious to hear how you think the is a legal method that needs to be protected?

Because sources and methods discussions don’t need to happen on unclassified environments. “Broadening the question” is often talking around what is legit classified for good reason. Sen. Cruz, with legit oversight authority, I’m sure can ask those questions in an appropriate setting and get more robust answers. 

The FBI is certainly not above reproach re: shady stuff, but I tend to give the federal LEOs the benefit of the doubt most of the time before getting all conspiratorial 🤷‍♂️

Is the potential charge here that what, the FBI entrapped people and actively led them to storm the building? There’s ample evidence that many of the perpetrators were there of their own accord and having a grand time with it all, at least based on their extremely unwise live social media streams from inside the building haha. The FBI thanks them for their generous cooperation. 🇺🇸

Edited by nsplayr
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 

The FBI is certainly not above reproach re: shady stuff, but I tend to give the federal LEOs the benefit of the doubt most of the time before getting all conspiratorial 🤷‍♂️

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. They've overstepped bounds and done "shady stuff" too many times for me to trust them based on the FBI name. 

Additionally...if the FBI had folks in the crowd trying to get the crowd to storm the capitol, who will not face any charges...doesn't that diminish any rhetoric about trying president Trump for encouraging the crowd to storm the capitol? After all...he was the head of the executive branch. If we think people acting on his behalf were in bounds to exhort that sort of action, why would it be out of bounds if the president did it?

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Because sources and methods discussions don’t need to happen on unclassified environments. “Broadening the question” is often talking around what is legit classified for good reason. Sen. Cruz, with legit oversight authority, I’m sure can ask those questions in an appropriate setting and get more robust answers. 

The FBI is certainly not above reproach re: shady stuff, but I tend to give the federal LEOs the benefit of the doubt most of the time before getting all conspiratorial 🤷‍♂️

Is the potential charge here that what, the FBI entrapped people and actively led them to storm the building? There’s ample evidence that many of the perpetrators were there of their own accord and having a grand time with it all, at least based on their extremely unwise live social media streams from inside the building haha. The FBI thanks them for their generous cooperation. 🇺🇸

You are trying to chaff the question.

#1.  Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot?

#2.  Did any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

#3.  Did any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

Those are not methods, those are CRIMES.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine the answer is no to all of those, but the witness did not want to dance around sources and methods in an open hearing so they decided to decline to answer anything IVO the topic. Sen. Cruz should ask the same questions in a classified session if he thinks it’s that important.

If you think there’s something more nefarious, ok; I do not.

Many people that entered the Capitol on Jan 6th 2021 have already pleaded guilty of crimes, and I at least have a pretty clear memory of who was encouraging that angry mob to head down to the Capitol and take action in the first place.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nsplayr, no these questions should be asked where the public can bear witness. If there are sources that were involved then perhaps they should be revealed. There are no "methods" that could be divulged from answering those questions. 

No? You don't think that everything that happens is a power play by someone? I'm sorry to tell you, but you are incredibly naive. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mention=5271]nsplayr[/mention], no these questions should be asked where the public can bear witness. If there are sources that were involved then perhaps they should be revealed. There are no "methods" that could be divulged from answering those questions. 
No? You don't think that everything that happens is a power play by someone? I'm sorry to tell you, but you are incredibly naive. 
 

I’m sure roles reversed with a Democratic Senator demanding to know if any federal agency elements were in place during a riot as a BLM member would be totally legit to the same people complaining about Cruz and others questions.

If FBI agents had been say active members in encouraging the CHAZ riots it would of course be a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You are trying to chaff the question.

#1.  Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot?

#2.  Did any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

#3.  Did any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6?

Those are not methods, those are CRIMES.

 

Uggghh. Are we really suggesting that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI "encouragement"?  A few years ago, that narrative would be laughable to anyone with a brain.  Still is.  Total joke and a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figures who were more than enough to convince a bunch of ignorant dipshits to storm the Capitol.  For those who want to believe this nonsense, ask yourselves: What would be the benefit to the FBI of leading an angry mob to Nancy Pelosi's office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lawman said:


I’m sure roles reversed with a Democratic Senator demanding to know if any federal agency elements were in place during a riot as a BLM member would be totally legit to the same people complaining about Cruz and others questions.

If FBI agents had been say active members in encouraging the CHAZ riots it would of course be a problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can’t talk about BLM in reference to the tragic day of Jan 6 that eclipsed Pearl Harbor and 9/11! How dare you bring up Whataboutism? We can’t afford to have our hypocrisy come to light.  Those poor businesses in towns like Minnesota (most of them non-wealthy black owners) are the price of decades of systemic racism and the system rigged against minorities of the most free nation on Earth. 
 

Last time I checked, everyone in the Capital still has a job.  Same can’t be said for the thousands of poor souls without a livelihood because of the Marxist BLM thugs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2022 at 11:12 PM, Prozac said:

Uggghh. Are we really suggesting that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI "encouragement"?  A few years ago, that narrative would be laughable to anyone with a brain.  Still is.  Total joke and a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figures who were more than enough to convince a bunch of ignorant dipshits to storm the Capitol.  For those who want to believe this nonsense, ask yourselves: What would be the benefit to the FBI of leading an angry mob to Nancy Pelosi's office?

So we can't discuss "that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI 'encouragement'" but instead we should readily believe that the the Jan 6 violence was a result of Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figure's  'encouragement'?  

I'm literally no neither side of this argument, but what you just said doesn't pass any kind of logic test.

That's literally a dressed up version of "Don't listen to them because they're wrong.  Listen to me because I'm right!"   

Can I buy some facts please?  People here are attempting to follow facts.  Such as the fact that a man was recorded actively encouraging a mob...who then decried him as a fed btw...to go into the capitol building.  The FBI put him on the watchlist...then promptly remove him from their watch list entirely, and then refuse to acknowledge who he is.  Even if he is/was an FBI plant, what he was inciting the croud to do is illegal...and he was recorded...with his knowledge...inso doing.  Yet no FBI pursuit.  That doesn't sound suspicious to you?  At all? 

More importantly, if you can't see the political benefit of encouraging a political opponent's base to riot and go into (can we call it invading?) government offices, I beg you to step back and see the forest for the trees.  The benefits are incalculable.  Why do you think they're bring it up again a year later?  One person died, and then the capitol of our republic, by the people for the people, was shut off from the people through military means.  Meanwhile, where is the outcry over the CHAZ?  Where are the news stories commemorating how the federal, state, and local governments are helping the hundreds of citizens killed, injured, displaced, or otherwise negatively impacted by the events all across the west coast?  Do you even know the death toll from the CHAZ?

I'll spell it out: Getting your enemies to attack you and make you look like the victim when you are in power gives you more power.  That's how bullies and thugs operate.  They bully who they don't like until that person attacks them back, the bully times it so the response occurs in front of the principle or the police, so the bully looks like the victim.  This is nothing new, and politicians are REALLY good at it.

If you cannot objectively see how both sides of the political spectrum, especially the extremists in power seats right now, are crafting the narrative to sway your opinion, well, I politely ask you to stop watching CNN and/or Fox News for a minute and read a little more history about how countries collapse.  We're showing all the symptoms friend.  It's not good...and the current leaders are making it much, much worse.

Edited by FourFans130
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

So we can't have a suggest "that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI 'encouragement'" but instead we should believe that the the Jan 6 violence was a result of Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figures'  'encouragement'?  

I'm literally no neither side of this argument, but what you just said doesn't pass any kind of logic test.

More importantly, if you can't see the political benefit of encouraging your political opponent's base to riot and go into (can we call it invading?) government offices, I beg you to step back and see the forest for the trees.  The benefits are incalculable.  Why do you think they're bring it up again a year later?  One person died, and the capital of our republic, by the people for the people, was shut off from the people through military means.  Meanwhile, where is the outcry over the CHAZ?  Where are the news stories commemorating how the federal, state, and local governments are helping the hundreds of citizens injured, displaced, or otherwise negatively impacted by the events all across the west coast?

If you cannot objectively see how both sides of the political spectrum, especially the extremists, are crafting the narrative to sway your opinion, well, I politely ask you to stop watching CNN and/or Fox News for a minute and read a little more history about how countries collapse.  We're showing all the symptoms friend.  It's not good...and the current leaders are making it much, much worse.

Except that all of the people I mentioned were literally encouraging their followers to riot. If I were China, I couldn’t think of a better narrative than to have half of the American public lose all faith in their institutions, to have half the public believe their president is illegitimate, and to have half the public believe that the chief American epidemiologist is responsible for Covid and not lax Chinese practices. We are well and truly fucked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prozac said:

Except that all of the people I mentioned were literally encouraging their followers to riot. If I were China, I couldn’t think of a better narrative than to have half of the American public lose all faith in their institutions, to have half the public believe their president is illegitimate, and to have half the public believe that the chief American epidemiologist is responsible for Covid and not lax Chinese practices. We are well and truly fucked. 

Do you think the current administration is fighting against, or helping along that Chinese agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FourFans130 said:

Do you think the current administration is fighting against, or helping along that Chinese agenda?

I honestly don’t know. A lot of/most diplomacy happens behind the scenes. I think Biden is trying to stay out of the culture war cesspool publicly. American diplomacy and soft power are much bigger than any one president. I have faith that the system is working as designed. 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I have faith that the system is working as designed. 

You and me both.  I actually no longer associate Biden with the current administration as he's pretty much just a talking head as best I can tell.  The rest of the administration, and the complete lack of media oversight and questioning is what bothers me.  Previously, the president and everyone around him couldn't sneeze without media questioning, casting shade and doubts about what they're doing.  Now?  Not so much.  Knowing the sheer number of nameless and faceless individuals setting agendas and policy in closed briefing rooms with absolutely no oversight should be concerning.  I don't believe those individuals are nefarious...but without oversight and public awareness...who's in charge?

Edited by FourFans130
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FourFans130 said:

You and me both.  I actually no longer associate Biden with the current administration as he's pretty much just a talking head as best I can tell.  The rest of the administration, and the complete lack of media oversight and questioning is what bothers me.  Previously, the president and everyone around him couldn't sneeze without media questioning, casting shade and doubts about what they're doing.  Now?  Not so much.  Knowing the sheer number of nameless and faceless individuals setting agendas and policy in closed briefing rooms with absolutely no oversight should be concerning.  I don't believe those individuals are nefarious...but without oversight and public awareness...who's in charge?

I hear you man. The only caveat I’d add is that I don’t buy that “the media” is a monolithic liberal machine. It is highly partisan though. But the problem you identified is real. Any “oversight” is strictly upon party lines and it’s become difficult to know what’s a real issue and what’s being trumped up to affect the next election cycle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Prozac said:

Uggghh. Are we really suggesting that the Jan 6 violence was a result of FBI "encouragement"?  A few years ago, that narrative would be laughable to anyone with a brain.  Still is.  Total joke and a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from Trump, his sons, Rudy Giuliani, and all the Alex Jones type "media" figures who were more than enough to convince a bunch of ignorant dipshits to storm the Capitol.  For those who want to believe this nonsense, ask yourselves: What would be the benefit to the FBI of leading an angry mob to Nancy Pelosi's office?

I don't know what to believe, but when she replied to the question "Sir, I can’t answer that" it sure didn't help.  A very simple "Absolutely not" would have ended the discussion and controversy, but she couldn't do that.

I know and have worked with a lot of FBI agents, one was my closest friends until he passed away last year, great Americans and extreme professionals.  That being said, every group of all-stars has one or two bad apples, including our community.  While I certainly don't think it was an institutional effort to encourage people to enter the capitol, sometimes bad apples do things they shouldn't to make their case stronger, it happens far too often with LEOs.  There are some questions that people want answered and she the fact that she would not simply answer does not help settle the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say zero evidence? Like when Rudy called for “trial by combat?”

I know how this conversation will go, but your attempt to feign ignorance by taking things literally when it suits you and saying it’s a metaphor when it works in your favor is par for the course.

News flash: You don’t have to support an insurrection just because the last one was instigated by conservatives. Just like how those conservatives don’t have to define conservatives as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Prozac said:

 For those who want to believe this nonsense, ask yourselves: What would be the benefit to the FBI of leading an angry mob to Nancy Pelosi's office?

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/11/1072123333/justice-department-domestic-terrorism-unit

Quote

The Justice Department says it is setting up a new domestic terrorism unit to help tackle what officials say is an escalating threat posed by violent extremists.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/justice-department-s-domestic-terrorism-unit-should-come-new-terrorism-n1287388

Quote

Third, will the new unit be engaged with implementing the White House national domestic terrorism strategy? Released in June 2021, with great fanfare, the strategy to combat the domestic threat was a mile wide but an inch deep. It spoke of enhanced government and law enforcement partnerships with social media platforms, battling disinformation by teaching Americans to be more savvy consumers of information, and it promised to at least look at the need for a domestic terrorism law.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

but when she replied to the question "Sir, I can’t answer that" it sure didn't help.  A very simple "Absolutely not" would have ended the discussion and controversy, but she couldn't do that.

Agreed. Thanks for clarifying your position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So this “voting rights” bill…who exactly (that is legally able to do so) can’t vote in elections?  And what is keeping them from being able to vote?

The answer will be filled with “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...