Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

all lies and jest.

still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

mhmm.

 

Okay Garfunkel, you still haven't answered the question.

 

Glad you have self awareness

 

Yes. It is within the FBI’s purview to investigate groups that have professed violence and may be engaged in criminal acts. That fits with groups like the Proud Boys. Entrapment would be if the FBI had come up with the idea of invading the Capitol and provided the means to do so. So far there’s been no evidence of that.

The facts are that Trump organized the rally and invited his supporters to it. To be fair he did say nonviolent but he also did it would be wild and told his supporters to fight like hell. Further he told the Secret Service to not screen for weapons and during the height of the assault in the Capitol inflamed the situation by going after Pence in a tweet.

If we want to argument that the government actually is behind what happened well Trump at the time was the nation’s highest ranking LEO so then yes you could make an argument that Trump was the one government agent inciting the people. That would also fit that several of those charged have argued that they only acted on Trump’s behest.

 

the Rep is about to have the DoJ crawl up his ass

 

better that having the IRS crawl up his ass. amirite?

 

Why? Asking stupid BS questions that don't show any wrong doing isn't a crime. The DOJ will do nothing.

What do you think is the significance of those questions?

 

This tweet isn't accurate. It is intentionally misleading. There were 20 assets. Assets are not the same as agents. This tweet is false. It repeatedly interchanges 'informant' with agent.

Even if there were undercover agents it isn't proof of anything.

This addresses some of the claims from the article linked in that tweet.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-carlsons-conspiracy-theory-about-fbi-and-ja/

 

DoJ needs to come clean about what they knew ahead of time, whether they could have done more to prevent it, and to what extent they encouraged it.

Law enforcement spying on private citizens, especially political groups, is highly problematic. The FBI has been doing it as far back as J Edgar Hoover tapping MLK's phone.

 

this.

 

you have remarkable faith in the integrity of the IRS and FBI.

 

From what I've read (but I've only been a casual reader), it sounds like many of the FBI's informants informed after the fact. And given that the government was underprepared, I suspect that they didn't know all that much ahead of time.

Sure, we've had some bad history with FBI spying upon and harassing civil rights groups, and more recently Muslim groups, but I'm not inclined to say they shouldn't be doing any spying when there are good reasons to suspect an organization plans to engage in violence, like the Oath Keepers did, al Queda cells did, environmental activists did, or black supremacists did. If people are conspiring to commit violence, I want the FBI putting their noses in.

 

I have almost no faith at all. When someone is able to put forward evidence that isn't based on ignorance of the difference between an agent and informant and is credible, I will be happy to examine it, and hope to see any wrongdoing by the FBI, IRS, ATF corrected and people held accountable.

So far, there hasn't been any presented.

 

I would love for there to be more transparency. However, they need to make sure informants are not outed. It would endanger them.

 

There is a whole commission on this topic.

Republicans had the opportunity to participate, they chose not too. They could have called these witnesses and found the answers.

If you want more accountability, elect better leaders and not the trash in your tribe.

 

They'll participate next session.

Once Pelosi set the precedent of not allowing the other party to choose their own members, any other rule (like which witnesses could be called) she would have discarded as well. There was no point playing her rigged game.

I wonder if she will have the Capital Police video footage destroyed (and if the GOP will release more of it), or if the DoJ will try and prevent GOP members from viewing/sharing it ("ongoing criminal investigation", "would endanger national security", the usual excuses).

 

The members the GOP wanted to put on the committee were potential subjects of the investigations. AC Cowlings wasn't ever going to get a seat on O,J. Simpson's jury. That is legitimate and maintains credibility for the committee rather than discrediting it.

 

Committee chairs have always had a lot of power regarding which witnesses could be called. The Democrats didn't have much power in deciding who could be called for under the Benghazi select committee.

But again the Republians had an opportunity for a nonpartisan committee and turned that down. They also still could've apointed a number of people to the committee besides Jim Jordan and MTG. The Democrats went through a similar situation with the Benghazi select committee with many saying Democrats shouldn't participate. Ultimately they did as Pelosi felt it was better to have some representation on it even if it seemed like it wasn't going to be set up in their favor.

 

Indeed, there was a common sense rule of not allowing insurrectionists on the commission.

Unlike the right, the left is actually reasonable, and would have allowed any reasonable requests.