They were different crimes. One group tried to overthrow our democratic election and were guilty of seditious conspiracy. More serious than anything the rioters involved in BLM protests did.
Yes my deep state because I actually control it. As the link showed hundreds of BLM protesters were charged with federal crimes. I don’t have conviction results but it is a fact many were handed very sever sentences. Also note since most of the protest took place not on federal property many have been charged with local and state crimes including most of those in Minnesota. Jan. 6 was a singular event that Was far better covered than even the George Floyd protests and in top of that many of those in Jan. 6th essentially admitted to their crimes by posting about them on social media. It’s not some conspiracy that there is far more evidence against those on Jan. 6 than over several days, several cities following the killing of a George Floyd. Anyway your own argument shows that both BLM and Jan. 6th was pursued by the DoJ.
To note another key difference in the situations. Here in Minneapolis things were bad with hundreds of businesses looted and burned. It wasn’t as though everyone protesting was also looting and burning. From most accounts including what I witnessed personally it was a minority of people who were there who were potting and destroying property. In fact following the nights of protests there were many including many who were protesting who came out and helped clean up. merely protesting on the streets of Minneapolis isn’t a crime. Unauthorized entry onto the US Capitol is so anyone who went into the Capitol on Jan 6th was breaking the law. It’s not some vast conspiracy then that many of those arrested following the BLM protests weren’t charged because unless there is evidence of things like looking and arson a crime can’t be proven. While just being on Capitol grounds on Jan. 6th is evidence of a crime.
True, and to be fair, many of those protesting in DC on Jan. 6th didn't actually enter the capitol building. I believe it was only a minority that did. But all those that did committed at least one crime. Others committed more.
Word on The Street is that the Deep State is so hard to find, since they are hanging out at the North Pole with Santa.
Word on The Street is that the Deep State is the GOP, and they don't care about you, me, vets, kids, the FBI, the economy, the country or democracy. Accumulation of power is their only goal.
The Durham report did mention that rank and file members of the FBI did question the orders and did "save itself" for the most part, else there would be more convictions and the report would be indisputably damning. What failed is when the media and well placed members were driven by a political angle to jockey for higher access and power that caused downward pressure to rush things and exploit structural gaps in the system.
So the evidence that this was an FBI orchestrated false flag operation is... that the Uhaul had a Nazi flag?
I have read the article - it is an opinion piece by an journalist that does cover the subject matter (so he is aware of the issues) but has also been accused of being compromised by other writers (although in fairness, there has been no guilt found). As for the article - it is essentially an opinion piece that at times can seem like a "report" because it draws so much on historical events in the past. The historical events that it cites are from what I can tell accurate, but often times taken out of context or incomplete. Those historical facts are then taken to sew together the reason that the piece was written - to claim the FBI needs to be reformed or possibly eliminated. The use of language is odd at times, it makes use of terms that are over the top or used by conspiracy theorists often found on the internet. An example is the use of "Republic" and there are others. The drafter does a few times make statements that give some degree or understanding or sympathy towards certain figures in the FBI. From my understanding of the FISA requirements, I don't entirely agree with the author and I think some of his conclusions are biased. Having said that, his general belief that there is no one overseeing the FBI, and when you have that level of power, abuses happen - is something that I believe to be true, and I think most Americans do as well. I will admit, I find his timing to be interesting - I haven't read everything this author has printed, but was he sounding the alarm after 9-11? What did he say about the FBI Director leak of the Clinton investigation right before the election? Why does he say so little about the current director? Also, he talks about the erosion in the trust of the FBI - but that is clearly because the former President and part of his party has been talking nonstop about the FBI for 6 years, has closely scrutinized the FBI and in general done everything possible to erode trust in the FBI. Now, the FBI has made mistakes and that has also contributed - but several things can be true at the same time. As for the Durham Report - it is a joke, he basically found nothing - so he simply publishes a report light or facts and heavy on his opinion. It is red meat to Trump supporters, but it really has very little long term importance.
agree with much of what you say here disagree with this. It may be that he found very little that was new, but with the benefit of 6+ years of hindsight he put together the "Russiagate" story as coherently as it has been done so far--and that's a very real service. this is the type of head-in-the-sand "it's a nothing burger" attitude that is so limiting and damaging for Democrats. No offense to you Nook, plus there's a grain of truth to what you say--but if Democrats wonder why there continues to be a fanatical devotion to Trump and such willingness to act on those beliefs (no matter how misguided or misplaced) e.g., as we saw in the Jan 6 riots, the Durham report explains 99 percent of the context for the anti-Democrat and anti-deep state animus that exists for so many citizens/voters today. disagree, strongly.
I suppose, but I feel like it was already well established - but I also read it through the lens of wanting to learn new surprising information. No offense taken. Perhaps I am just jaded, but I believe that most people in the USA in 2023 suffer from confirmation bias and will do anything to validate their preconceived notions. That extends to both parties. Time will tell. It wouldn't be the last time I am wrong.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-su...contreras-a7f69cd6?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s How FISA Shields FBI Abuses The secret court helps the bureau duck political accountability. By The Editorial Board May 23, 2023 at 6:35 pm ET The Durham report recently revealed how the FBI opened its Trump-Russia investigation in 2016 without “any actual evidence of collusion.” Now a newly unsealed court document reveals that the bureau conducted thousands of improper searches on American citizens under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The numbers are astounding. The document issued by the secret FISA court says the FBI improperly conducted 278,000 warrantless searches on U.S. citizens. Rudolph Contreras, then the presiding judge of the FISA court, issued his ruling in April 2022 but it was only made public Friday. It deals with the Section 702 powers that are used to spy on the electronic communications of foreign nationals overseas but can incidentally include communications with Americans. The searches must reasonably be aimed at gathering foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime. The sheer volume of improper searches confirms the judge’s observation that the bureau’s “compliance problems” have “proven persistent and widespread.” For example, more than 19,000 donors to a failed (but unnamed) Congressional campaign were searched without sufficient cause. FISA courts were designed to prevent abuses by giving judges a say in the collection of foreign intelligence. But as we have learned, this didn’t stop the FBI from lying on its FISA application to spy on former Trump aide Carter Page. FISA court oversight also hasn’t stopped the hundreds of thousands of Section 702 “non-compliant” searches. Judge Contreras said he was “encouraged” by the FBI’s new search procedures—and the FBI says the number of improper searches has dropped considerably since introducing them. But he warned that if the problems continue the court would have to consider “other responses.” Here’s one possibility: Abolish the FISA court. Congress created FISA in the late 1970s in response to the government’s wiretap abuse. At the time legal sages such as Robert Borkand Laurence Silberman warned it was a bad idea. Bork wrote on these pages that the real effect of introducing judges into foreign intelligence decisions—an executive function—would have the effect of “immunizing everyone” from responsibility for their actions. That’s exactly what has happened. Without FISA courts, FBI agents and supervisors couldn’t use the court’s oversight as a political shield. They’d have to answer for their actions to the voters and Congress, which could still do oversight. This news about FISA abuses is now going to complicate President Biden’s request that Congress reauthorize Section 702 before it expires on Dec. 31. Section 702, when used properly, is a vital intelligence tool in defending against foreign threats such as terrorism. But abuse is diluting public and political support for 702. A process that erodes accountability is worse than none at all. Appeared in the May 24, 2023, print edition as 'How FISA Shields FBI Abuses'.
