The Jan 6 Commission

[yossarian22c]

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
...

Ah there it is. But it doesn't seem to mean what you're wanting it to mean. given the context of every other time he used the word "fight" in that same speech. It's clear as day he's being figurative in his use of the term. And the conclusion of his speech where he states what the objective of marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to Capital Hill? That kind of actively rules out violence. Beside he'd already spelled out what the recourse was for the Republicans that "didn't fight for him in Congress" should they fail to do so back near the start of the speech:

How many of the Jan 6th rioters do you want me to site that they believed they were doing what Trump asked them to do? According to the database NPR is keeping on the court records 50 defendants (10%) have used Trump to explain their action. 10% of the people arrested so far have basically admitted guilt by saying they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

You can't tell people an election and their country is being stolen from them, point them to the capital, tell them to fight like hell, and then cop out that by "fight" you mean primary the people who don't try to overturn the election in 2 years.

What would your opinion be if a BLM leader got up in front of an emotional crowd, said black people were being gunned down in the streets, that police were carrying out a genocide against blacks, then told them to march down to a police station and fight like hell. If that crowd went and burned down a police station killing a police officer and getting multiple protesters killed would you call for their arrest for incitement? Would you let them skate on the fact they used fight non literally in other points or their speech or at one point in the speech said to march peacefully? Speaking to a large emotional crowd you have to be mindful of the most emotionally evocative parts of the speech.

[TheDeamon]

Can anyone say with a straight face that Trump could not have prevented Jan 6 violence if he had chosen not to be pugilistic, petulant, and petty? Did he CAUSE it? Don't know. But it never happens if he were a better man.

Trump undeniably created the environment for what happened.

But I do not believe Trump knowingly did anything to make it happen, and it is very likely he did not believe that anything like what happened on the January 6th was even likely to take place.

So if you're trying to pass judgement based on intent then the case is dead. As to liability? That's a very different rabbit hole, and one that is best buried as deeply as possible. That's not somewhere Democrats really want to go, the MSM and certain social media outlets played major roles "in creating the environment" which allowed Trump to do what he did, after all. Both in 2020, and way back in 2016.

[NobleHunter]

I'm sure Trump wanted something to happen that would let him remain President. Though if he said the things he did without an awareness of what could happen, it doesn't speak very well of him.

[rightleft22]

But I do not believe Trump knowingly did anything to make it happen

When, after all the things Trump had done but didn't mean to do, do we hold him accountable and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Its time to stop thinking of Trump as dumb - he knows exactly what he's doing and how to do it so that people aren't quite sure.

[TheDrake]

Trump made it clear that he was complicit when he sat on his hands and wallowed in the chaotic violence. He attacked pence in a tweet while Pence was being evacuated. It took fifteen more minutes for him to call for people to stay peaceful. Please note he did not tell everyone to go home. Not until two more hours of chaos had persisted. If he DIDN'T intend for those things to happen, why wouldn't he have tried to stop it?

[Seriati]

The gaslighting is strong here. Go back and watch video from the day and say that was not an insurrection.

It was not an insurrection.  There is no element of what happened that is even remotely consistent with an insurrection.  And you know what?  You know that too.  You are just overly invested in the real Big Lie:  that if you call it an insurrection over and over and over no one will ever ask for proof of that.

The armed crowd was trying to stop the Congress from confirming Biden as the winner of the election.

Armed crowd?  What percentage?  As far as the actual "evidence" on the crowd being armed, less than 3 dozen of the 300 charged (out of tens of thousands) are facing weapons charges.  That includes charges for weapons that weren't at the rally, and the vast majority are charged with having weapons they picked up at the scene - in large part police batons.  Some stun guns, some pepper spray.  Hard to explain - in reality - why a group that has a large percentage of gun owners didn't bring any of their weapons to their "insurrection" to overthrow the US government by disrupting a ceremony with a fake significance.

Care to explain why the "insurrectionists" were less armed than the average "peaceful" protesters from the left?

The Republican Party has changed and for the worse. I made no comment on the Dems. This Whataboutulism needs to stop.

Nah.  The claims that something is "whataboutism" need to stop.  Violence in politics is fundamentally about the left using and accepting the use of violence to pursue their own goals.

What were the root causes of Jan 6 and the Seattle riots?  In Seattle people were protesting the murder of an unarmed black man by a cop.  Mainly peaceful protests until dark when unknown masked people started rioting and allowed the Police to crack down.  I think there were hundreds of arrests made so during the night.  Most of them were later released, since the arrest were mainly blanket actions. There is much evidence of outside agitators starting the violence.

This is why the country is in trouble.  You bought a Big Lie.  The protests in Seattle are tolerated because they are about destablizing Seattle, they create "emergencies" that can be used to change local, state and national government to provide power to the left that is not remotely consistent with our form of government.  In some cases there were hundreds of arrests, but virtually no charges, specifically because the prosecutors are political activists on the left.  The police do their jobs, the activists violate their oaths of office and refuse to do theirs.  Ask yourself why there are hundreds of charges in the capital riot, when the videos show that the leftist riots are generally even more violent (and frequently demostrate clear evidence of pre-planning and criminal intent).  Simple answer, the  prosecutors are political activists on the left.  It suits their politics to bring those charges, but any neutral application of the law would reverse those outcomes.

Leftist prosecutors have flat out announced they wouldn't file charges against leftist insurrectionists, leftist mayors flat out ordered their police not to interfere with leftist rioters and even looters, leftist media openly cover up how bad the situations really are when its leftist and use the chaos to cast stones at the people on the right.  Anyone with a functional IQ should be able to see that its ridiculous logic to claim that Republicans are responsible for the violence of the people on the left and those on the right and Democrats are not - particularly when its always Democrats in government that openly encourage the violence, cover it up, protect it in court and lie about it.

Jan 6 was a group, acting on a false narrative promoted by Trump and his allies, that the election was stolen.

Were they?  What percentage of the votes cast have you positively traced from the voter to the ballot that would allow you to make that claim?

Zero percent.  Yet somehow you feel entitled to spread your own Big Lie.

Fact is there's compelling evidence that the election was stolen.   There's evidence of fraudulent voting (though not "enough" in our framework where its virtually impossible to catch), there's certainty of modifications to voting laws that manipulated the election and were unconstitutional.  There was blatant media and social media manipulation of the truth, including out right suppression of legitimate stories and even deliberate media lies.  I mean you guys threw a four year tantrum over media lies about the impact a minor Russian social media spend on the 2016 election, and don't bat an eye about the Billions of dollars of free media manipulation and social media manipulation in 2020.

In broad daylight they stormed the Capitol trying to stop the democratic process.

In what way would this have stopped the democratic process?  By all accounts, the riot is quite probably the only thing that stopped Congress from forcing votes on certifying certain questionable results.  Of course, no one things those votes would have carried (ie they would have voted to accept the results anyway).

You should just tell the truth, instead of spread false stories about what other people believed.  In "broad daylight" they stormed the capital because they believed they were trying to save the democratic process.  Which if you're looking at their intent is clearly the case.  If you can't admit that then you are not in fact facing reality. 

Without looking at their "intent" you can even make your case.  Why?  Because in "reality" their actions had no chance of overturning the election.  Whether or not the Congressional vote occurred makes no difference, it's fake, its ceremonial, and if did reject state votes it would almost certainly be overturned immediately in court.  Ergo, you have to be concluding that their belief they could have an impact was relevant, and yet then you'd have to consider their belief that they were protecting Democracy.  Hard to explain why you get to pretend reality doesn't exist when you look at what they were trying to "accomplish" but then ignore that belief when you look at what they did.

This was not done by masked Antifa agitators, but by sign carrying, flag waving Trump supporters. No sign of outside agitators starting the violence.  Just Trump supporters.

That may or may not be the case.  All I know for a fact is that one antifa was caught real time.  It seems unlikely that only 1 would have been there.  But that doesn't mean they were actively pushing anarchy, cause really when does antifa ever do that?  There's no question that the crowd was made up of a large number of Trump supporters, any more than there is that a crowd that burns down a police station or court house is not made up of Trump supporters.

Of course the Republican's are scared of the commission.  It would show that  many of them were complicit, either in true belief (Hawley, Bobbert, MTG, Ghomert etc) or cynically using the crowd (Cruz, etc).

Nah, it'd just be fatally stupid to give the Democrats more cover for telling the lies they want pushed.  There's zero chance, and I really mean zero chance, and that is not hyperbole, that the Democrats in Congress are looking for the truth.  They're looking to pin their narrative into the public conscious.  They know it wasn't an insurrection, but they also know that selling that Big Lie helps them stay in power and use "whataboutism" to draw attention away from the thousands of politically violent riots they've used to expand their power.

[Seriati]

Guilty of  what?  My prediction, they get no actual verdicts only guilty pleas (in exchange for massive deals).

People were caught on camera breaking into the Capitol and you're asking what they're guilty of? But I'm sure they're just pleading out because they're afraid of the massive left-wing machine out to persecute god fearing patriots. No real laws were broken, it's all just a conspiracy to keep Trump out of power.

If all they're being charged with are "crimes" like trespass and disorderly conduct then this is a political persecution of the highest order.  Those "crimes" are routinely ignored when it's a leftist riot.  I mean heck, the left ignores breaking into stores for the express purpose of looting them, they ignore throwing molotov cocktails at federal court buildings, they ignore occupations of police districts that are looted and burned down. 

The prosecutors here don't have a real case for insurrection but that isn't going to stop them.  With charges on 300 people they're going to play the game where the suborn perjury from hundreds to get them to lie about the remainder.  They're going to amp the pressure up and up and up till they get "confessions" in plea deals to crimes that didn't occur.  I mean we don't even have to question that, they do it over and over and over again.

[Seriati]

As someone pointed out, if Republicans are so utterly sure that much of the destruction at the 1/6 insurrection was done by Antifa, why did they block a bipartisan Congressional investigation where they could prove it to the entire nation?

Answer: because they know it is just another lie that they could never prove in a setting where you have to lay out your proof and have it scrutinized by everyone.  Just like they were never able to prove that the election results were false in any court of law.

In some funny way you demonstrated exactly why the Commission would have been a mistake.  The courts overwhelmingly failed in this last election.  They let overt election interference occur.  They failed to establish any credible review of votes on any scale, heck in most cases they let the very people that would be going to jail if the election was manipulated retain control of every single bit of the evidence that would demonstrate guilt.

There is no question at all that if Trump had been declared winner with the extent of irregularities that are known to have occurred that not one single person on the left would have accepted it.  Not one of you on this board would have the same position, every one of you would cite to ever single affadavit that you pretend means nothing as if it sufficient proof, the media would still be playing "stolen" election 24 hours a day and your outrage would still be fever pitch.

And that's sad.  I've seen nothing that convinces me that any of you want an honest look at what occurred in the election despite having next to zero actual information, yet it's somehow a travesty that a Congress that hasn't done anything on a non-partisan basis in a decade won't pretend that they are generating a non-partisan report about a law enforcement matter.

[msquared]

Serati you have bought into Trump's big lie.

One comment.  You ask how many votes have been traced back to the voter.  You say 0 percent. Of course it is 0 percent. Becuase we have a secrect ballot.  There is no way to trace any individual vote back to a partucular voter. Never has been. Ever. If you want that you want to destroy one of the fundamental freedoms of the US. Not surprising that you would want that.

What can be traced is that the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who voted.

Maybe in the other protest around the country there are no charges becuase most of the people who were arrested did not violate any laws. They were only arrested in broad sweeps.  Almost no one was arrested on Jan 6. But they were arrested after they posted on Facebook that they stormed the Capitol. Many of those arrested said before they rioted that they were looking for people to execute.

I thought you were pro police?  What did this group do that was so different. They attacke the capitol police.

So Serati, answer the question. Will Trump be President by the end of Aug? Or is Trump delusional?

[Seriati]

Well, so far the people who have been identified and are being prosecuted are all Trump supporters, from what I've heard.

You've heard?  Still no questions though.  How about, if the FBI can use social media (without warrants) to obtain millions of records about anyone that talked about Trump or going to DC to track down "capital rioters" why can't they ever do that to track down rioters in Democratic cities?  Or why is it okay that they were violating the civil rights of Trump supporters before January 6th?  Or how about, why would you expect them to "find" antifas if they're using social media to track down Trump supporters?  Or how about, why would you think they don't know about antifas just because they haven't charged them when they're openly leftist and have no interest in charging antifas?  There have been numerous violent protests and riots in DC by leftists and the FBI doesn't use these tools to find them, the DOJ hasn't brought these charges - even when they caught them.  It's not because of the injuries - leftists have been more violent and caused more injuries - its because of politics.

There's no way the government got legitimate search warrants based on probable cause for all that social media traffic that rapidly.  It's literally not possible, which means they've once again ignored the civil rights of American citizens, and the proof is pretty much completely in the speed and numbers they've charged.  Yet again, you'll skip that obvious violation in pursuit of the political goal.

It will be interesting to see how many of the most violent attackers are not eventually caught and charged.  So I don't think we need to wait until everyone is caught before we can conclude that Trump supporters were actively involved in the violence.

And the Democrats in Congress agree, they didn't need to know anything before they reached that conclusion.  Ergo, the uselessness of a Commission.  It won't be allowed to conclude that the facts don't support your preconceived notion, which means NO MATTER WHAT it would produce a "majority report" (ie the report of the Democratic participants) that "validates" those preconceived notions, even if they have to lie about it.

And while arrests and prosecutions can identify and punish the guilty, such investigations cannot go into exactly why those who tried to stop the working of Congress did so.

Or arrests and prosecutions can be used by politically motivated prosecutors to make it appear that one side is guilty, just like the same side can pretend to be innocent when its politically motivate prosecutors refuse to prosecute, drop charges and release the guilty from jail.

Or given intent is relevant and they stole an enormous amount of social media explaining exactly why those people did what they did but they are only leaking tid bits that make them look guilty, it could be known but it wouldn't be helpful to the "story" to let them appear to be sympathetic or to have a moral point.  Kind of like how the left plays up the "moral" outrage of their own violent rioters while completely burying anything about the crimes, hatred and violence and that allows their acolytes to pretend they have a moral highground when they're in bed really dirty people.

How much were they influenced by others, especially government officials?

Yes, let's determine exactly how much "public officials" influence violent rioters in this country.  Let's vet that out in every single district and remove every such public official permanently from office.  I have to say I love what that would do if it were legitimately applied everywhere.

Who may have helped them before the incident?

Helped them with what exactly?  What exactly are you really getting at?  Are you implying that people should be facing criminal charges for organizing  a protest?  For driving people to the protest?  For making signs?  What exactly is the "help" you are looking to find?

Who may have incited them?

Yes, lets track down all the Democrats that were involved in rigging the election thereby inciting the rioters and throw them in jail.  Oh, sorry, not the autocrats you were looking for.

These and other issues, necessary to understand to help prevent any future incidents, are beyond the purview of the justice system, but not of a Congressional investigation.

They're beyond a partisan Congress.  Honestly, to stop future Republican invasions of the capital all it takes is for Democrats to stop cheating and the Capital police to make sure they have adequate forces on hand.  Democrats in Congress are never going to conclude anything but that what's "really" needed is to put more power in their own hands to act in arbitrary ways to punish their political opponents.  More partisan surveillance, more partisan suppression of speech, more partisan application of unequal justice.

[Seriati]

Serati you have bought into Trump's big lie.

No, the big lie is the one that the media repeats over and over and over without any proof.  Claiming Trump was telling a Big Lie is the Big Lie.  The media has never had any proof that there was no election fraud.  Where do they get such absolute certainty?  No where but in their politics.

There is almost absolutely no ability to catch fraud in our system.  That does not lead to a conclusion that fraud does not occur.

One comment.  You ask how many votes have been traced back to the voter.  You say 0 percent. Of course it is 0 percent. Becuase we have a secrect ballot.  There is no way to trace any individual vote back to a partucular voter. Never has been. Ever. If you want that you want to destroy one of the fundamental freedoms of the US. Not surprising that you would want that.

Do you hear yourself?  How is your and the media's endless repeated "lie" that fraud didn't occur any different than Trump's "lie" that it did?

All the media did was burden shift, they didn't fact check the election, they didn't investigate reality or even truth, all they did - and I mean all - is claim that Trump didn't do what they couldn't do and therefore everything Trump said is a lie.  That's a ridiculously bad logical argument and if you actually engage your brain you'd recognize it as a fallacy.  It is a great legal argument, because our legal system assigns a specific person with the burden of proof.  That "legal" argument is why Biden is the "legal" President, and also why it doesn't matter under our system if he cheated in every state to get there.  Our system is set up to protect a cheater's win.  Is that any shock?

What can be traced is that the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who voted.

Do you hear yourself?  How do they determine the "number of voters who voted"?  By counting the ballots.  Especially for mailed ballots, there is NO chain of custody that ensures the correct voter voted or even how many voters voted.  That's why it was a Democratic priority to ensure that "every" voter got a ballot whether or not they requested it.  When every voter gets an unsolicited ballot the ONLY MEASURE of "who" voted is the ballots that come back.  And to make it worse, in many cases once you get the mailed ballot into the system you can't ever verify after the fact that it came from an actual voter.

Maybe in the other protest around the country there are no charges becuase most of the people who were arrested did not violate any laws.

Maybe hippos flew out their rears.  That's a "know nothing" response on your part.  It's not even a question, it's contrary to fact to assert that.  You've "seen" the videos of the Portland riots where protestors are throwing molotov cocktails, you've seen the videos of rioters across the country looting stores, of police being hit with bricks.

I really can't tell if that was an honest response - which would be beyond scary at the level of propaganda that implies you are consuming - or some weird Big Lie attempt.

They were only arrested in broad sweeps.

Nope, most arrests these days for leftists are only for egregious transgressions on a small scale.  Prosecutors still left them off.  Heck, some of the prosecutors have announced before the riots that they wouldn't prosecute anyone for any number of crimes - for example, that they won't prosecute anyone for a property crime unless it involves harming a person.  Open violation of their duty and the oath of office, but everyone knows that's only a "problem" if the person doing it is a Republican (and then it's impeachable).

Almost no one was arrested on Jan 6. But they were arrested after they posted on Facebook that they stormed the Capitol.

You have your facts wrong.  They got arrested because they posted before Jan. 6 that they were going to the protest and believed the election was stolen.  The FBI swept up the social media posts of who knows how many people for whom they had no probable cause.

Many of those arrested said before they rioted that they were looking for people to execute.

Really?  How many said that out of the 300?  How did you hear it, perhaps in a leftist propaganda piece with no actual quotes to any of the people involved?  Or sourced to an anonymous leak of someone "close to the investigation"?  Ever going to start wondering why so much of this unsourced stuff turns out to be flat lies well after it helps to set in motion the public opinion?  Nope, you jump the way they want, get invested and then fight the truth when it gets revealed down the road.  And that is exactly why they keep doing it.

I thought you were pro police?  What did this group do that was so different. They attacke the capitol police.

No question this group rioted and pushed through the police in many cases, though again there's also fairly clear evidence that in other places the police let them pass.  And I do support the police, I'd bet you most of the "insurrectionists" support the police as well.

So Serati, answer the question. Will Trump be President by the end of Aug? Or is Trump delusional?

There is no fixing a stolen election in our system.  I can't see how the election is going to be overturned even if Trump can prove it was fraud that tipped the scale.  For one thing those invested in the Big Lies of the left will never accept reality if it doesn't match their expectations.

I mean seriously, at this point, the media has been caught in political lie after political lie and none of you has seemed to catch the hint that a bunch of stuff you believe is "rock solid truth" is just political lies.  What is it going to take before you start wondering why if your side are really the "good guys" you have to lie constantly about everything?

How exactly would it work to "remove" Biden?  Let's say it's overwhelming demonstrated that more than enough votes in GA and Arizona were fraudulent and for Biden to overturn the results.  Heck let's assume it's not even close, and that they find smoking guns from the social media of leftist poll workers (which the FBI will never even look for even though they'd do it in a heart beat if the targets were Republican) admitting to facilitating the illegal votes.  What happens next? 

That's not enough electoral votes on its face, even if finding such massive fraud implies that it would have occurred elsewhere.  Would you just assume that Trump really won if those 2 states were demonstrated to have only been won by massive fraud?  Doubtful.

Biden can only be removed by impeachment.  Is Pelosi really going to move to quickly impeach him?  Doubtful she'd impeach him at all, even if they proved he was connected.  Far more likely they push him to resign, and then push Kamala to resign, but let them appoint new vice presidents.  So "worst case" if they had to force Biden out they'd still not let Trump in.

Seriously play the scenario out for me yourself.  Even if massive fraud is proven, how would we ever get an election unwound?  And that's assuming that the deep state bureaucrats could be kept from sticking their own fingers on the scales.  I bet you, for example, the first thing the DOJ would do if massive fraud was proven in GA and Ariz is seize the votes in other disputed areas.  I have zero faith that they'd be honest brokers in looking for fraud in those seized records.  Assuming they even wanted to look honestly, they could still stall and footdrag for as long as they needed.  Heck they could appoint a special prosecutor and use that trick to look down the entire process for years preventing any further proof until Trump's whole term was expired.

[TheDeamon]

Maybe in the other protest around the country there are no charges becuase most of the people who were arrested did not violate any laws.

With the Portland rioters, Federal Charges have been dropped on many cases (under the Biden Admin) where people were charged, had video evidence, and in some cases even had confessions of wrong-doing.

Nothing to see here folks.

They were only arrested in broad sweeps.  Almost no one was arrested on Jan 6. But they were arrested after they posted on Facebook that they stormed the Capitol. Many of those arrested said before they rioted that they were looking for people to execute.

I thought you were pro police?  What did this group do that was so different. They attacke the capitol police.

And the people who attacked the capitol police should be charged, but that is a handful of the 300 people currently charged, and dozens if not hundreds more still awaiting charges. By virtue of simply being "in the vicinity" of where the officers were assaulted. And by "in the vicinity" we mean on the other side of the Capital building.

Meanwhile going back to the Portland riots? Nah, nobody there should be charged for anything. Those dozens of police injuries where they were blinded must have been by way of shining their own laser pointers into their eyes, and those other injuries that were reported on their end must have been from their being unusually clumsy. Not the fault of any protesters, and anybody who witnessed that happening and stuck around, did nothing, but did continue to protest should not charged in association with that.

It's almost like equality before the law has no meaning in this country anymore.

[TheDeamon]

Just for fun, need to add this throwback into the mix:

You know what most of that "lawless destruction and violence" is? 

Graffiti.

05/29/2020

Violent anarchists broke a front window at the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Overall, the cost of damages on federal property done by the violent mob this first night was estimated at $5,000.
05/30/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the BPA Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Edith Green-Wenell Wyatt Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied the 911 Federal Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Gus J. Solomon Courthouse.
06/01/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Gus J Solomon Courthouse.
06/02/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the U.S. Custom House....

7/01/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied new plywood covering the windows at the Hatfield Courthouse and ripped down plywood on the other side of the building.
A group of over 200 violent anarchists blocked access to the building and proceeded to launch aerial fireworks at federal property...

07/15/2020

Violent anarchists doxed members of federal law enforcement.
Violent anarchists attempted to damage the Hatfield Courthouse by throwing objects at it and spray painting it. Numerous fireworks were also lit.
Violent anarchists trespassed on federal property and destroyed a card reader at the Justice Center.

Notice they are all also "violent anarchists."  Apparently, painting graffiti is "violent."  Doxing is "violent."  Refusing to stay off federal property is "violent." Refusing to immediately comply with orders is "violent."

There are a couple of handfuls of actual violent acts cited.  But most of it wouldn't be considered "violent" in the usual sense--a direct physical threat to a person's body.

It is so heart-warming to see that our Department of Homeland Security--the agency tasked to defend our country against terrorists and such--are spending their precious time defending government buildings from taggers.    But, hey, we gotta keep our country safe from "violent anarchists." 

Problem with the previously linked DHS statement is it leaves some ambiguity if activities on the morning of the 15th are part of the 14th, or 15th... But in any case:

07/14/2020
Violent anarchists set a container of liquid on fire at the Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists jumped a fence and attempted to breach the Edith Green Federal Building.
Violent anarchists assaulted federal law enforcement officers with cans and other hard objects while they attempted to unblock the entrance of the Edith Green Federal Building.
07/15/2020
Violent anarchists doxed members of federal law enforcement.
Violent anarchists attempted to damage the Hatfield Courthouse by throwing objects at it and spray painting it. Numerous fireworks were also lit.
Violent anarchists trespassed on federal property and destroyed a card reader at the Justice Center.

[Wayward Son]

Yes, it is instructive to look back at those "violent anarchists."

How many of the tens of thousands of BLM protesters actually threw rocks and hard objects at the police?

How many of them shot fireworks at police?

How many were arrested for trespassing because they walked on the lawn in front of a Federal building with no fence?  (Ans. at least one ).

Now how many were called "violent anarchists" because they trespassed?  Because they painted graffiti?  Because they did not immediately comply with orders from police officers?

Isn't this why some Republicans say that the Black Lives Matter movement is violent?

Now, how many of them threw fire extinguishers at police officers?  How many hit them with poles and shields?  How many of them struck them with fists and feet?

How many police officers were knocked down and surrounded by rioters?

How many of those rioters crawled through those broken windows and wandered the halls of the buildings?  How many of them were chanting that they wanted to hang government officials in those buildings?

How many broke into offices and looted them?  How many of them took over government chambers while they were being used?

And how many of them attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., the seat and perhaps heart of our Federal government?

Some Republicans call these people "tourists" and refuse to acknowledge that it was an insurrection to violently stop the government from performing its duties.  They won't even call them "violent." 

Yes, it is very instructive to compare the two, and see how some Republicans are a bunch of lying hypocrites who don't care how violent their supporters are, just as long as they continue to vote for them and don't primary they out of office.  And how Republicans still will support them. 

[TheDrake]

Not really sure why we're thinking the FBI and DOJ didn't use social media to track down violent BLM protesters.

Agents from the FBI and ATF learned about the fire at Ember+Forge by watching videos posted on social media from the protests in Erie that night. “That’s where we got a lot of our information from,” said Deputy Police Chief Mike Nolan, “and the FBI also saw some of that activity and contacted us.”

The FBI asked the Erie police about a couple of incidents officials had seen on video that “met their criteria” and said the agency would be willing to consider taking on cases of arson and anything involving an incendiary device, Nolan said. He didn’t know what the FBI’s criteria were, noting that “it changes based on what their priorities are at that given time.” Nolan said that the Erie police had a “strong relationship” with their federal partners but that his department had no say in which cases federal prosecutors took on.

According to the criminal complaint against Barnett, Cuba, the FBI agent, matched the clothing and hair of the man seen lighting the fire in the Facebook Live video Kirby saw to other videos from that night posted on social media that allegedly show Barnett wearing the same clothes.

Not to mention most of the Jan 6 rioters weren't making private posts in the first place, plenty of them dumped the information out on twitter proudly for the entire world to see. A whole lot of this:

Lazo took a Phillipine Walis Tambo broom with him to the Capitol, posting on Facebook that he "swept the floor literally," according to federal charging documents. He posted multiple photos of himself in the outfit he planned to wear on Jan. 6. and then posted photos of himself inside the Capitol, which helped the FBI to locate him in surveillance footage.

There have been search warrants issued in many of these cases to obtain private Facebook messages. Are there any concrete examples of such that have been obtained illegally? I can't seem to find anything but I didn't search really hard for it.

There is pretty broad legal agreement that existing law doesn't protect information shared with a third party, and Facebook is a third party.

When one applies the third-party doctrine to social
media information, one finds that individuals do not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in social media data. As a
result, government agents can presumably gain access to
posted social media data without meeting any probable cause
requirements. As soon as one posts information on a social
platform, the poster discloses information to the third party
platform operator. 23 Moreover, for most social networking
posts, all of the members within a user's social network also
receive access to the published information. In "Wall-to-Wall"-
type conversations between two users,2 4 the rest of the users'
social network functions as third parties to whom the content
publisher and recipient have voluntarily disclosed information.

Yale article

[TheDrake]

Gotta support the blue. Unless you are one of the 21 republicans who refused to award the Congressional Gold Medal to officers who defended the capitol and their very lives.

Lauren Boebert of Colorado
John Rose of Tennessee
Andy Harris of Maryland
Thomas Massie of Kentucky
Bob Good of Virginia
Louie Gohmert of Texas
Barry Moore of Alabama
Ralph Norman of South Carolina
Matt Rosendale of Montana
Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia
Chip Roy of Texas
Paul Gosar of Arizona
Andy Biggs of Arizona
Warren Davidson of Ohio
Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
Matt Gaetz of Florida
Greg Steube of Florida
Andrew Clyde of Georgia
Jody Hice of Georgia
Mary Miller of Illinois
Michael Cloud of Texas

Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who has been an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump and his supporters that remain in the House, publicly criticized his 21 colleagues who voted against the legislation.
"How you can vote no to this is beyond me," Kinzinger tweeted after the vote. "Then again, denying an insurrection is as well. To the brave Capitol (and DC metro PD) thank you. To the 21: they will continue to defend your right to vote no anyway."

[cherrypoptart]

One can't help but notice the Democrats aren't offering accolades to other police officers involved in riot control.

In fact, not only are they not offering accolades, they are instead offering prosecutions against police.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/06/officers-sergeants-with-portlands-rapid-response-team-resign-from-the-specialized-crowd-control-unit.html

"Officers who serve on the Portland Police Bureau’s specialized crowd control unit, known as the Rapid Response Team, voted to resign from the team during a meeting Wednesday night then alerted the chief’s office, a police lieutenant and the mayor’s office have confirmed.

The unprecedented move by about 50 officers, detectives and sergeants to disband their own team came a day after a team member, Officer Cody Budworth, was indicted, accused of fourth-degree assault stemming from a baton strike against a protester last summer."

[Wayward Son]

Are you saying, cherry, that Democrats should be praising Cody Budworth for bashing a woman's face with his baton after he had knocked her to the ground?  That you believe that police should be commended for pushing women to the ground and then trying to break their noses, teeth and cheekbones in order to clear a crowd?  That this is the type of policing that you want to see in your town, and be subject to yourself?

Even more remarkable, are you comparing the actions of the Capitol Police, who where going hand-to-hand with rioters who were attacking them with poles and fire extinguishers and fists, but who held back and did not draw their guns, to those police who would hit a woman in the face with a club when she was down?

Wow.  Just wow.

It does illustrate one of biggest problems with policing in this country.  A vast majority of officers would never rain such punitive punishment on citizens, even when under extreme circumstances.  But they will defend those other officers who would with silence or even walking off their jobs.  Because protecting the crimes of their fellow officers is most important than protecting the people or upholding the law.

[cherrypoptart]

As opposed to commending the police for shooting to death an unarmed woman who was also an honorably discharged Air Force veteran?

Was that police officer aiming for her specifically or just shooting randomly into a crowd?

If prosecuting the riot control officer is such a noble move then why did the whole riot squad just quit the team?

I don't feel like defending the guy for hitting a woman in the face when she was already on the ground but the whataboutism is strong here because in one case an officer is getting prosecuted for hitting an unarmed woman while in another an officer is getting commended for shooting to death an unarmed woman.

[yossarian22c]

I don't feel like defending the guy for hitting a woman in the face when she was already on the ground but the whataboutism is strong here because in one case an officer is getting prosecuted for hitting an unarmed woman while in another an officer is getting commended for shooting to death an unarmed woman.

The unarmed woman was part of a group literally breaking through the doors onto the house floor that members were still evacuating. She was shot while attempting to go through a broken window onto the house floor. So the officer probably wasn't firing randomly into the crowd, he was firing at the person leading the charge into the room and people he was responsible to protect.

The equivalence would have been if the woman had been struck while part of a violent group trying to break through police lines.

[Wayward Son]

As opposed to commending the police for shooting to death an unarmed woman who was also an honorably discharged Air Force veteran?

Actually, I am surprised that murder charges weren't brought up against every single person who was breaking the windows in that hallway.

Because that's the way it always works with law enforcement.  If a police officer kills someone while engaging with people during the commission of a crime, the person who was committing the crime is held responsible.  And no one can say that breaking windows while a crowd is threatening Senators and Representatives is not a crime.

It's not whataboutism.  They are completely different circumstances.  One is an officer beating on a woman who isn't an immediate threat.  Another is an officer defending elected officials from a riotous crowd that was a definite threat. Even the most casual observer could attest to that.

Try as you might, cherry, there is no equivalence between officers beating on a crowd to disperse them and officers trying to disperse a riotous, violent crowd who are beating on the officers.  It took a lot more guts to stand up and fight off those Trump supporters to protect our Congressmen than it did to beat up on a woman on the ground.  It is shameful that you, and those who suggested to you that they were equivalent, somehow don't see the difference.

[cherrypoptart]

I guess everything is just so politicized because I'm just not seeing how it was right to shoot that woman, how that wasn't an excessive use of force, and how less than lethal measures weren't more appropriate. We'll just have to see what happens with the civil suit. When an unarmed white Trump supporter protests apparently it's okay to shoot to kill but when the left protests even a baton is enough to get an officer prosecuted. And I don't remember, ever, that a police officer was granted anonymity in a deadly force case. I'm not necessarily against it as officers and their families are certainly put in danger when their names are plastered all over the news as they are vilified by the left before all the facts are even known but it's just interesting how that protection only applies when the victim is a white Trump supporting conservative woman.

[NobleHunter]

Circumstances matter. If you want to complain about differential treatment, you need a trump supporter being beaten in a street riot/protest or a left wing person being shot trying to storm the capital.

[cherrypoptart]

If it was legal to shoot and kill her then it would have been legal to shoot to kill them all, just set up a 50 cal on a tripod in that hallway and mow them down like Kent State kids and that's perfectly fine, in fact give the cops some medals and Congressional applause.

And now all of them are guilty of murder because a police officer shot and killed one unarmed woman? I'm just not understanding that.

[cherrypoptart]

If it was legal to shoot and kill her then it would have been legal to shoot to kill them all, just set up a 50 cal on a tripod in that hallway and mow them down like Kent State kids and that's perfectly fine, in fact give the cops some medals and Congressional applause.

And now all of them are guilty of murder because a police officer shot and killed one unarmed woman? I'm just not understanding that.

Most of them thought they'd been invited to the Capitol by their President. Sure their guest manners could have been more refined, but it seems like this got blown all out of proportion just for politics. And yes the violent ones who were attacking cops should get long sentences just like anyone who attacks a cop should although Democrats seem to think only some people who attack some cops, certain people and certain cops in certain times at certain places, should get prosecuted for it, but for the ones just trespassing to take selfies and post them on their Facebook pages we shouldn't go overboard.

[LetterRip]

And now all of them are guilty of murder because a police officer shot and killed one unarmed woman? I'm just not understanding that.

Same as any other felony.  A death as a result of your actions results in felony murder charges.  Her death absolutely would not have happened if they hadn't stormed the capital.  She is dead ergo felony murder.

Get away drivers also are charged with felony murder for the same sort of thing.  This isn't new or unusual.

Most of them thought they'd been invited to the Capitol by their President.

I know you aren't a moron, please don't insult our intelligence with such BS.

[TheDrake]

She was in the lead, that's why she got shot. Intent on killing Nancy Pelosi, as far as that officer has to assume. She wasn't just wandering around the lobby waving a Trump flag. She was just yards away from her potential targets.

If it had just been her, I'd consider it excessive and that non-lethal would be very much preferable. If there hadn't been lawmakers seconds away from her, same thing.

[Wayward Son]

Yes.  Consider the circumstances.

A violent mob has just battered their way through a security window.  He's the only person between them and the legislators just down the hall.

He doesn't shoot the woman, because she's unarmed.  What about the next unarmed guy who goes through the window?  Does he shoot him?  What about the guy after that?  Or that guy after that? Or the guy after that?

Now this lone guy has five people to keep back from the legislators he's tasked to protect.  How is he going to stop them now?  He tries to shoot one of them, the others could easily overwhelm him, especially since more people are coming in.  And while they're beating him, others go and start beating, or worse, the legislators he was supposed to protect.

As TheDrake said, he was keeping everyone out.  She shouldn't have gone through first.

[Seriati]

It's fascinating the sides you've taken on this one.  You should watch the videos again, because frankly Wayward your analysis is supporting a lie.  You can literally watch that window being broken by several men with a flag pole, a helmet and their fists - every one of whom as a greater threat than the clearly unarmed Ashli Babbot.  It wasn't a snap decision, the officer in question had his gun pointed at Babbot for a good 15 seconds, never once waivering to any of those actually threatening.  It's also a situation where there were officers all over the scene, in fact the window only got broken because the plain clothes officers standing in front of it for several minutes withdrew when tactical officers armed with rifles came onto the scene.  The same tactical officers that "appear" in the scene within less than 2 seconds from the time Babbot is shot.

The officer that chose to kill her, deliberately targetted the least threatening target at a time when the tactical squad called in specifically to control the situation was in his line of sight.  After he watched plain clothes officers that had been standing directly in front of those doors exposed in every way to that crowd calmly walk out of the way.  Was his threat behind a door and behind a makeshift barracade erected behind the door with a tactical squad standing feet away somehow greater than the plain clothes officers that were standing exposed to the crowd less than 10 seconds earlier?

And how do we know this?  The video I saw was taken by a self described liberal activist (yep, a liberal at the Trump rally) who can be plainly heard threatening the plain clothes officers in a way that seemed designed to get them to over react to the protesters.  It's not clear to me by the way that he wasn't standing in a group of such activists that also happened to be primarily responsible for attacking the door and yelling provocations but I'm guessing the DOJ is not going to "find" those persons.

Why is an a non-Trumper literally standing right at that point egging on violence by the police?

I've yet to hear how you think left wing violent protests can be legitimately broken up.  Why don't you walk through the exact level of violence that is "permitted" to stop a violent left wing protest.

A thousand to one, if an officer shot someone under the exact same circumstances at a left wing protest not only would there be charges brought against the officer, it'd be non-stop national news.  And you'd trip over yourself explaining a completely contrary position on why that instance is wrong.

Have consistent principles or quit pretending you have principles.

[Wayward Son]

You can literally watch that window being broken by several men with a flag pole, a helmet and their fists - every one of whom as a greater threat than the clearly unarmed Ashli Babbot. It wasn't a snap decision, the officer in question had his gun pointed at Babbot for a good 15 seconds, never once waivering to any of those actually threatening.

The officer was situated on the other side of the hall from the window that was smashed in, from what I saw, just behind the barricade of chairs.  His angle would not have allowed him to target anyone on the other side of the doors.  He could only target anyone who came through the window.  And Babbot was the only one who did.

It is a pity that she went through first, and not one of the people who broke the window and was therefore "more threatening."  But she decided to go through first.

It's also a situation where there were officers all over the scene, in fact the window only got broken because the plain clothes officers standing in front of it for several minutes withdrew when tactical officers armed with rifles came onto the scene.  The same tactical officers that "appear" in the scene within less than 2 seconds from the time Babbot is shot.

From the officer's vantage point, he would not have seen the tactical officer approaching.  He would, maybe, have only seen the one officer in front of the window withdrawing.  From what he knew, he was the only officer between the mob and the Congress people.

The officer that chose to kill her, deliberately targetted the least threatening target at a time when the tactical squad called in specifically to control the situation was in his line of sight.

As I said before, it wasn't that she was the most threatening person in that situation.  But his strategy was apparently to hold that pinch-point so that NO ONE could come through it.  Because once someone came through it, that person could distract him so that another could come through, and then another, and then another, until he was outnumbered and unable to stop them all.  So whoever came through would be shot, to stop anyone else from trying to come through.

So it didn't matter if there were more threatening people behind her.  He had to stop each person coming through, and she was the first.

The video I saw was taken by a self described liberal activist (yep, a liberal at the Trump rally) who can be plainly heard threatening the plain clothes officers in a way that seemed designed to get them to over react to the protesters.  It's not clear to me by the way that he wasn't standing in a group of such activists that also happened to be primarily responsible for attacking the door and yelling provocations but I'm guessing the DOJ is not going to "find" those persons.

I did not hear those threats, and it is not clear to me how you know that it was the "reporter" who said it and not some person next to him.

The only thing I heard was someone (I assume the "reporter") call out a warning, "He's got a gun."  Which doesn't sound like a provocation to me.

I've yet to hear how you think left wing violent protests can be legitimately broken up.  Why don't you walk through the exact level of violence that is "permitted" to stop a violent left wing protest.

Too much trouble.  I will say, however, that if a left-wing mob had been breaking windows at a doorway barricaded with chairs, protecting government officials on the other side, and they had broken through, that deadly force would have been justified.

Do you disagree?

A thousand to one, if an officer shot someone under the exact same circumstances at a left wing protest not only would there be charges brought against the officer, it'd be non-stop national news.  And you'd trip over yourself explaining a completely contrary position on why that instance is wrong.

I'd take that bet.    You've been listening to the right-wing media lies again, and it has warped your perceptions.

Have consistent principles or quit pretending you have principles.

Sorry.  Anyone who supports Trump, or has supported him and does not regret it, can no longer lecture me on principles.  American Conservatives and Republicans sold their principles year ago to a con man in the White House.  I doubt they would recognize actual principles anymore. 

[Wayward Son]

Meanwhile, the first person is convicted of a felony for the Capitol insurrection.  And Judge Randolph Moss pulled no punches.

“The symbolism of that act is unmistakable,” the judge said. “In that act, he captured the threat to democracy that we all witnessed that day. … People have to know that assaulting the United States Capitol and impeding the democratic process, even if you don’t come bearing arms, will have consequences.” ...

“I don’t think that any plausible argument can be made defending what happened in the Capitol as an exercise of First Amendment rights,” the judge declared. “There were people storming through the halls of the Capitol saying, ‘Where’s Nancy?’ People were threatening the lives of members of Congress. That is more than a simple riot.” ...

“The question I have for you is really whether the sentence you are seeking, no confinement at all, will really heal the country or will encourage others out there to think they can engage in this sort of conduct in the future,” Moss said to the defense lawyer. “If we allow people to storm the U.S. Capitol when they don’t like what the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives are doing, what are we doing to preserve our democracy in our country?”

Paul Hodgkins will now have 8 months in jail to consider the judge's words.

[TheDeamon]

The Conviction wasn't for insurrection though. Also, it was part of a plea deal, something we were expecting a lot of people to do.

Loss of points for Politico not bothering to use the proper legal term on what he was convicted of.

Also:

Prior to Monday, only two of the hundreds of defendants charged in federal court with crimes related to the Capitol riot had been sentenced, both after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

Indiana resident Anna Morgan-Lloyd was sentenced to three years probation for demonstrating in the Capitol rotunda, while Florida resident Michael Curzio was sentenced to six months imprisonment on a similar charge.

No insurrectionists yet.

[TheDeamon]

Also on a tangential note:
I'm surprised nobody has been pointed out all of the redacted CI's that seem to be popping up in the court documents surrounding Jan 6.

Or how the Gretchen Whitmer abduction plot is now getting a lot of press attention for having more CI's involved in the plot than actual genuine participants, which means a strong entrapment case is now being built by the defense.

[Wayward Son]

"CI" refers to Criminal Informant, correct?

Tell me you're not listening to that idiot, Tucker Carlson, are you?  The one who is labelling any unidentified "person" as a CI?    Because I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds of informants who recognized these people from the pictures they posted on the Internet and dropped a dime on them, who the FBI would rather not mention in public.  Which, to Tucker, would automatically make them a "CI." 

That is the only source that talks about CIs that I could find.  Perhaps you could refer me to a better one?

[TheDrake]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant

[Wayward Son]

I can't get your link to open, The Drake.  Is this the one you are referring to?

BTW, I was referring to the Jan. 6 insurrection, not the Whitmer kidnapping plot.

[yossarian22c]

"CI" refers to Criminal Informant, correct?

Sometimes confidential informant. But take that with a grain of salt, my criminal law lingo comes from TV.

[TheDrake]

I see the url was wonky routing through Google. I chose the whitener one because deamon mentioned both and I suspect the Jan 6 stuff will be harder to find unless you use site:8chan or something. Since the quote talks about digging around in raw documents for redacted names. I don't like to speculate on sources, but it becomes necessary when sources aren't indicated by OP and there are no direct quotes, just paraphrasing.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant

[TheDeamon]

Buzzfeed is the source to the Michigan story, I've heard the claims from Carlson(via 3rd parties) on the Jan 6th records.

But if the Michigan story is anything to go by... I'm suspicious that some of the primary instigators for the more outrageous behaviors on January 6th are going to turn out to be Government agents working undercover, or Informants they(federal agencies) "brought in" to facilitate the investigation.

As Buzzfeed reports on the Whitmer sting:

For six months, the Iraq War vet had been wearing a wire, gathering hundreds of hours of recordings. He wasn’t the only one. A biker who had traveled from Wisconsin to join the group was another informant. The man who’d advised them on where to put the explosives — and offered to get them as much as the task would require — was an undercover FBI agent. So was a man in one of the other cars who said little and went by the name Mark.

So the investigators provided the expertise, and offered the material support. They even brought in additional manpower to help make it happen.

And it gets better as per Buzzfeed:

A longtime government informant from Wisconsin, for example, helped organize a series of meetings around the country where many of the alleged plotters first met one another and the earliest notions of a plan took root, some of those people say. The Wisconsin informant even paid for some hotel rooms and food as an incentive to get people to come.

So it seems many of the 12 guys who did get charged, probably never would have met each other if it wasn't for the Government Informant helping bring them all together... This doesn't seem to be a group that existed in any meaningful way until the Government decided to make it meaningful.

The Iraq War vet, for his part, became so deeply enmeshed in a Michigan militant group that he rose to become its second-in-command, encouraging members to collaborate with other potential suspects and paying for their transportation to meetings. He prodded the alleged mastermind of the kidnapping plot to advance his plan, then baited the trap that led to the arrest.

If the reporting from Buzzfeed is correct, the case of the alleged Abduction plot has major serious flaws. This sounds like someone probably posted something dumb online, and Government counter-terror/espionage picked up on it and turned a molehill into a proverbial mountain by giving the guy what he believe to be every resource he needed to try and make the attempt. But remove the government involvement, and you simply have some guy posting smack on the internet, talking about things he wished someone would do. 

...And the problem with that counter-intel operation now, is that if it's been done once, it's probably been done, or was being done, in other groups at around the same time as well. Which leads us right into the runup for the conclusion of the Presidential election cycle, and January 6th.

Now what happens if we were to discover that Ashli Babbit traveled to Washington on a ticket purchased by a Government informant acting on instructions from a government agency? What if we learn dozens of their most serious offenders currently awaiting trial.... Wouldn't have even been there if not for Counter-Intelligence groups trying to "get their guy."

This is borderline tinfoil hat territory, I'd like to say it IS tin foil hat material with regards to January 6th... But using the Buzzfeed report on the Whitmer Abduction case as a launching point, I'm going to say something is very rotten here.

False-flag indeed, only it wasn't anti-fa, it looks like domestic law enforcement may have been pulling on several strings they shouldn't have been.

Maybe we do need that commission after all, too bad the Democrats aren't interested in anything that could exonerate a bunch of Trump supporters.

I'm now highly interested to see what legal defenses get brought forward by the ones that don't take a plea deal.

[TheDrake]

Claiming government entrapment is a common strategy in domestic terrorism cases — in part because it is among the only available defenses if prosecutors have evidence from extensive surveillance. Such defenses usually fail, and most domestic terrorism defendants are convicted.

As you say, we'll see.

[TheDeamon]

Claiming government entrapment is a common strategy in domestic terrorism cases — in part because it is among the only available defenses if prosecutors have evidence from extensive surveillance. Such defenses usually fail, and most domestic terrorism defendants are convicted.

As you say, we'll see.

By the same token, it seems entrapment laws/definitions appear to need a revision to broaden their scope.

The government created most of the social network that was involved. (and provided the numbers to make the plan seem viable)
The government provided them with the training needed to make them think they could pull it off.
The government provided them with the funding needed for many of the conspirators to attend meetings.
The government had their agents promise the (special) material support they needed to make it sound viable.
The government had agents "inciting" the group into making statements/taking actions they likely wouldn't have absent the government agent provocateurs in their midst.

Yes, the government didn't make them do the things they did, but... Just wow.

By the standard of Trump "inciting an insurrection" by telling people they're going to need to "fight like hell" and instructing them to march to the Capital Building... These Government informants/agents seem to have crossed a great many lines as well.

[TheDrake]

So far it is pretty one sided, defense has made a lot of claims about woe is us, we meant no real harm. None of these claims has yet been tested, therefore I say wait and see.

Would you feel as badly for them if it was a group of Muslims daydreaming about jihad? Because I'm willing to bet that an FBI agent offering to find explosives for them would hardly raise an eyebrow. What about an FBI agent offering them a plane ticket? What if they were the ones running drills?

They were very convincing in showing that Siraj would have committed the crime if given the adequate weaponry. His sympathy of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas gave him a strikingly dangerous set of role models that would have meant he could have become violent and committed a terrorist act at any time if given the right amount of pressure. When Eldawoody told him that he was part of a terrorist organization from his country and that he could produce the materials to build a subway bomb, Siraj jumped onto the idea, they claim. They dismissed any allegations that Siraj was duped into the crime, stating that he was trying to "play dumb" rather than admit to his actual intentions. The fiery statements he made regarding the United States and his anti-American sentiment made him a dangerous individual at best. Eldawoody testified that "The defendant said that if anyone did... [a rape or murder] to his family, he would do the same thing, meaning a suicide bomb."[11]

Wiki

example - guilty, in depth (paywall)

[TheDeamon]

Would you feel as badly for them if it was a group of Muslims daydreaming about jihad? Because I'm willing to bet that an FBI agent offering to find explosives for them would hardly raise an eyebrow. What about an FBI agent offering them a plane ticket? What if they were the ones running drills?

They were very convincing in showing that Siraj would have committed the crime if given the adequate weaponry. His sympathy of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas gave him a strikingly dangerous set of role models that would have meant he could have become violent and committed a terrorist act at any time if given the right amount of pressure. When Eldawoody told him that he was part of a terrorist organization from his country and that he could produce the materials to build a subway bomb, Siraj jumped onto the idea, they claim. They dismissed any allegations that Siraj was duped into the crime, stating that he was trying to "play dumb" rather than admit to his actual intentions. The fiery statements he made regarding the United States and his anti-American sentiment made him a dangerous individual at best. Eldawoody testified that "The defendant said that if anyone did... [a rape or murder] to his family, he would do the same thing, meaning a suicide bomb."[11]

Actually, yes, I would? I actually remember one of the Islamic terror plots that were disrupted being linked to overly aggressive undercover agents and being uneasy about it even then.

There is a "shades of grey" aspect to this, in relation to how likely it is that the parties involved would be able to "obtain the means" otherwise.

An undercover sting that has Agent A referring your to Agent B to arrange a hit on "your" ex-wife is one thing in my book.

Having Agent A refer me to Agent B to carry out the hit while Agent C is giving "you" the money needed to pay for the hit as Agent D eggs "you" on is another matter entirely.

At a certain level of government involvement in a chain of decisions being made, they've ceased being concerned about enforcing laws. But have instead become some kind of weird morality/thought police whose mission is to lure the impure into doing something illegal so they can be prosecuted by the glorious inquisition.

Which isn't even getting into the Psychology aspect of something on the scale of the Michigan case, where we can talk about group dynamics, group think, and social cohesion theory among other things. Nearly half of the people involved in that plot were either federal agents, or informants operating under federal instructions. Honestly, at that level of infiltration, I'd think the better use of government resources would be to de-escalate the group rather than further enrage them until they do something they can be prosecuted for.

[TheDrake]

I actually thought about the deescalation aspect and I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, preventing the crime is the primary objective. On the other hand, is it safe to let those folks build up to the point where they might have capabilities they don't have now. Appreciate your consistent application of principle.

[TheDeamon]

I actually thought about the deescalation aspect and I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, preventing the crime is the primary objective. On the other hand, is it safe to let those folks build up to the point where they might have capabilities they don't have now. Appreciate your consistent application of principle.

Possibly? This gets back to the "group dynamics" part of it. Nearly half of the group were government actors knowing they had immunity from prosecution so long as they followed instructions. If those instructions were for the majority of them to encourage the rest of the group into taking "bolder actions," (ones that started to move into clearly illegal territory) then we're laying the foundation for "group think" to take hold and everyone else is going "Well, these guys seem to be very gung-ho about this, and nobody else is speaking out against them..."

It's one of the more annoying things about human nature, we tend to like to follow the herd. And in the Michigan case, half of the herd was working for the Government and the Government wanted them to do something illegal, and directed them in that direction..

You remove the "herd" of government agents, and in particular, you remove the government agents providing major material support and the others "egging them on" and the whole thing likely falls apart.

On the one hand, preventing the crime is the primary objective.

Thought crime isn't criminal in the Untied States, despite how much some people might wish it were. And I'm going to revisit that comment in a moment.

On the other hand, is it safe to let those folks build up to the point where they might have capabilities they don't have now.

So we need to identify everyone who is mentally unstable to the point they might commit a violent crime, and lock them away in an Asylum for the Criminally Insane in the name of public safety? How progressive of you.

[TheDrake]

Planning an actual crime is most definitely illegal. Wanting to kill your spouse is a thought, and not illegal. Attempting to contact and hire a hitman who turns out to be an undercover is illegal. Even if it was unlikely that the individual could find a real hitman to carry out the act. It is absolutely worthwhile to start investigating him while he's just contemplating killing the spouse. The question remains if intervention to get him psychiatric care is preferable to locking him up for years.

[TheDeamon]

Planning an actual crime is most definitely illegal.

I want to know how a number of people in Hollywood haven't been arrested then.

Wanting to kill your spouse is a thought, and not illegal.

Agreed

Attempting to contact and hire a hitman who turns out to be an undercover is illegal.

Now you're ignoring context.

There is a "shades of grey" aspect to this, in relation to how likely it is that the parties involved would be able to "obtain the means" otherwise.

An undercover sting that has Agent A referring your to Agent B to arrange a hit on "your" ex-wife is one thing in my book.

Having Agent A refer me"you" to Agent B to carry out the hit while Agent C is giving "you" the money needed to pay for the hit as Agent D eggs "you" on is another matter entirely.

Even if it was unlikely that the individual could find a real hitman to carry out the act. It is absolutely worthwhile to start investigating him while he's just contemplating killing the spouse. The question remains if intervention to get him psychiatric care is preferable to locking him up for years.

In the case of the guy contemplating the killing of his wife, just having an undercover agent direct him to an undercover person posing as a hitman to carry out the hit is one thing. Prosecution in that case is something I'd fully support.

But once that morphs into two additional undercover operatives becoming involved where none of them are trying to de-escalate, and are instead actively working as a team to escalate him into deciding to have a hit put out on his spouse?

I'd sooner think the undercover agents need to brought up on conspiracy charges.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."


Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own.  In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved.  Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts. 

Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies.  Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense.  Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.

Where the conspiracy in question is to push a specified group of people into potentially committing illegal acts.

But they'll be safe from prosecution under the Biden Admin as the Michigan and Jan 6 people were wrong-thinkers.

[msquared]

 "along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal."

Do  you think the FBI people had the intent to kidnap the governor?  If they didn't then where is the conspiracy?

If you do not support the police in all things you must want them dead?  I mean Blue Lives Matter, right.

[TheDeamon]

"along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal."

Do  you think the FBI people had the intent to kidnap the governor?  If they didn't then where is the conspiracy?

If you do not support the police in all things you must want them dead?  I mean Blue Lives Matter, right.

They achieved their goal, an illegal act happened, people are being charged in connection with their work.

Unless you're saying nothing illegal did in fact happen, in which case, why are those people being charged?

[Fenring]

Do  you think the FBI people had the intent to kidnap the governor?  If they didn't then where is the conspiracy?

Assuming one was taking the discussion seriously that FBI agents could possibly go up on conspiracy charges, it's not necessary to assume it would be conspiracy to kidnap the governor. It could be any number of crimes that they were egging the others on to do. But that being said, guilty intent isn't the end-all of criminal cases. Maybe a lawyer would like to weigh in on where the border is, but doing all of the actions necessary to achieve a crime seems to me to qualify as criminal activity, even if in the back of your mind you had a different plan. For example:

I go out and buy explosives, attached under my wife's car, to explode when it starts. I also contract a hitman to shoot her should that fail.
However, as it happens, I also had planned to warn my wife at the last second and avoid the bomb, and had planned to call up the hitman on his cell at the last minute to call him off. So I didn't really intend to kill my wife, it's just that I set up the environment that looked like it on every level that usually matters. But even if somehow the jury could read my mind and know that I didn't really intend for her to die, I did arrange all the circumstances to make that happen, didn't I? So is this intent to murder, or not?

In the case of FBI agents, sure, you can say "well why would FBI agents want the governor kidnapped?" But that sounds like a prejudicial type of argument to me. Assuming they're innocent by default can't be considered as real evidence. And I suspect you'd have a hard time proving they were directly ordered to foment a terrorist plot. In fact I think these type of operations need an amount of deniability such that if (somehow) it actually got to court no superior would ever admit to having given the order for them to try to get people to kidnap the governor. There would be no official root to their actions to fall back on. Just the vague idea of 'oh, it must have been a legitimate FBI operation, nothing to see here.' But that should not qualify as a legal argument, right?