"The FBI is corrupt and biased, therefore there was not an insurrection" (am I distilling it down correctly?) is certainly an interesting perspective.
Let's say the FBI, Capitol Police and DC Police knew of the coup beforehand. They would want the National Guard mobilized and sent to the Capitol. That means calling the 2020 Loser aka Benedict Donald to authorize release of the Guard. Guess what? The Orange Turd was asked repeatedly to do just that and refused. It was PENCE, not the president, who finally got reinforcements. So yeah, it's the FBI's fault.yep, significant fed involvement before 1/6. tainted narrative publicly. these convictions seem about as legit as the "fbi's whitmer kidnapping plot" convictions after all, right down to advance fed involvement that makes the events (as described) strange. if feds knew about 1/6 significantly in advance, i don't see a way to conclude anything but government malice wrt decisions involving security leading up to it.
the other people might be criminals, but now we have evidence that known criminals (fbi) were involved as well
edit: note that the conviction you reference very likely involves brady violation(s). you cool with brady violations?
Yes, that's the insinuation. There were some FBI agents in the crowd. I believe that has been established. It's because some of the members of the crowd were under FBI surveillance. The right will latch on to any detail that will get the, ahem, scumbags off the hook, and so they've fabricated, out of whole cloth, the notion that it was these FBI agents who instigated the break-in to the Capitol building.What would the FBI involvement be that's alleged? That they infiltrated and lead people to insurrect?
Considering the low intelligence of Trump minions, it's quite possible they could be duped into trying to overthrow the government. Fortunately there is verified video evidence of the minions being duped for months and incited into trying to destroy American democracy. Just look at the campaign speeches where Don the Con claimed the only way he could lose is if the Democrats cheated, then after election he claimed fraud. His minions lapped it up by the gallon. But obviously the FBI was the cause -- they never arrested Donnie Numbnuts during the campaign or even after, so they really are the ones who lied for months then whipped up a crowd into a murderous rage on J6.What would the FBI involvement be that's alleged? That they infiltrated and lead people to insurrect?
Is this the same case when they literally had guns on standby?
I gave a good faith effort at exactly this. After the goalpost was moved multiple times I concluded that bad-faith had been conclusively established, and I was dealing with rank partisanship rather than any sort of intellectual honesty. I'm satisfied that there's no fig leaf.It's all because I'm pressing him to make good on his claim early in this thread that if written evidence of a conspiracy emerged, he would change is mind. The indictment of the Oathkeepers included such evidence, but TMIT said "well, you can charge anyone with anything." Now we're at, "well, a conviction doesn't mean anything either."
All rather than just change his mind, and say so. As he said he would.
third time: you cool with brady violations?Ok, so now I gotta wait until all appeals have been exhausted?
I'm a patient man.
question is how much of this conspiracy to overthrow the government came from...the government. the whole reason i expressed doubt in the first place was that the fbi was already caught doing nearly all the work of a "plot" to kidnap a governor. to the point of sourcing the only means anybody involved had to actually execute the plot, smoking pot with the suspects, and having more feds than willing participants in the plot. they secured pleas and (using mistrial) convictions with this disgraceful fact pattern.But to keep denying that there was a conspiracy to overthrow the US government
meanwhile, you seem to be disregarding lots of evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, and some questionable practices regarding people being held w/o bond for long periods. if you're actually cool with brady violations (?), i don't think i'm where the fingers should be pointing wrt intellectual honesty.But convictions can be a result of prosecutorial misconduct (it turns out), so now I have to wait another while to see whether TMIT will make good on his boast regarding his intellectual honesty: that he would change his mind if there ever appeared a written record of such a conspiracy.
numerous people get convicted with no evidence beyond the claims made in the usa, even in unrelated/non-political cases2) no jury reaches a verdict "on the word of prosecutors"; the defense gets to make its best arguments as well
it's a lot easier to secure convictions when you willfully exclude evidence inconvenient the prosecution. which isn't legal, and reeks of the same conduct as prosecutors moving to block dna evidence clearing previously (and wrongfully) convicted felons.3) the prosecution has to convince twelve people; the defense only one; they couldn't do that in this case
our alphabet agencies have not exactly maintained clean hands in that period, and probably didn't have clean hands prior.MLK died roughly 55 years ago, before most of us were even born.
reports are that 8 fbi agents were involved in months both before and after 1/6. also that they withheld information from this involvement during the prosecution, which is illegalWhat would the FBI involvement be that's alleged? That they infiltrated and lead people to insurrect?
Is this the same case when they literally had guns on standby?
it seems there was involvement well before there was a "crowd". like, month+ before.Yes, that's the insinuation. There were some FBI agents in the crowd. I believe that has been established. It's because some of the members of the crowd were under FBI surveillance.
you guys seem to be treating a conviction with an apparent brady violation as meaningful. it's odd to claim my rejection of it as bad faith. unless you're cool with brady violations?I gave a good faith effort at exactly this. After the goalpost was moved multiple times I concluded that bad-faith had been conclusively established, and I was dealing with rank partisanship rather than any sort of intellectual honesty. I'm satisfied that there's no fig leaf.
are you cool with brady violations?But there was. Here's why I think this is a meaningful development. It has now been legally established, through a conviction not a plea, that there was a seditious conspiracy. Now, if the evidence is there for it, you can draw other conspirators into that: Stone, etc. (Not likely Trump himself, because he's careful never to put anything in writing.)
fair, though it doesn't change the optics much...the conclusion is still "we knew about this way in advance" and "we withheld relevant information from the courts".Oh, in colloquial parlance 'informant' =/= ' FBI agent', just to avoid any misstep. "FBI Agent" tends to refer to actual FBI personnel in regular usage.
I know I'm going to regret doing this, but I'll bite.you guys seem to be treating a conviction with an apparent brady violation as meaningful.
fair, though it doesn't change the optics much...the conclusion is still "we knew about this way in advance" and "we withheld relevant information from the courts".
though if i'm not mistaken, the whitmer situation involved actual agents too.
depends on explanation/contextWhat will it mean to you, TheMeInTeam, if Rhodes' lawyers do not file an appeal that alleges violation of the Brady principle?
Loads, it was the head of government. It was on TV.question is how much of this conspiracy to overthrow the government came from...the government.
If it happened, he will probably get off, right? I think there is little chance the would risk that when they so clearly had him bang to rights, but feel free to provide a link.brady violations
Loads, it was the head of government. It was on TV.
Criminal referrals coming Friday.