Unindicted Co-conspirators
-
So we should have known that various groups have been infiltrated with undercover people. That’s pretty normal every day stuff. My favorite example is the enigma code where moral dilemmas were created when the British knew that people would die but didn’t prevent the event(s) such that the Germans would know and therefore no longer let their secrets and war strategy fall into the wrong hands.
Tucker’s narrative turns this whole thing on its head as if the groups were infiltrated such that they caused the insurrection or at a minimum helped foment something that otherwise would not have happened.
Reminds me of the way Rachel Maddow rearranges info to paint her own partisan stories.
I didn’t think Tucker would go that far and as far as I’m concerned he needs to now prove it, rather than just dangle theories.
Conspiracy theories have gone badly for the GOP. He ought to be more careful.
-
So we should have known that various groups have been infiltrated with undercover people. That’s pretty normal every day stuff. My favorite example is the enigma code where moral dilemmas were created when the British knew that people would die but didn’t prevent the event(s) such that the Germans would know and therefore no longer let their secrets and war strategy fall into the wrong hands.
Tucker’s narrative turns this whole thing on its head as if the groups were infiltrated such that they caused the insurrection or at a minimum helped foment something that otherwise would not have happened.
Reminds me of the way Rachel Maddow rearranges info to paint her own partisan stories.
I didn’t think Tucker would go that far and as far as I’m concerned he needs to now prove it, rather than just dangle theories.
Conspiracy theories have gone badly for the GOP. He ought to be more careful.
@loki said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
So we should have known that various groups have been infiltrated with undercover people. That’s pretty normal every day stuff. My favorite example is the enigma code where moral dilemmas were created when the British knew that people would die but didn’t prevent the event(s) such that the Germans would know and therefore no longer let their secrets and war strategy fall into the wrong hands.
Tucker’s narrative turns this whole thing on its head as if the groups were infiltrated such that they caused the insurrection or at a minimum helped foment something that otherwise would not have happened.
Reminds me of the way Rachel Maddow rearranges info to paint her own partisan stories.
I didn’t think Tucker would go that far and as far as I’m concerned he needs to now prove it, rather than just dangle theories.
Conspiracy theories have gone badly for the GOP. He ought to be more careful.
There are times when an agent must break cover or an informer has to be burned. I would think a riot at the Capitol would warrant such action.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@aqua-letifer said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
I thought it was very well established at this point that on January 6 no one actually did anything and it was all an MSM deep fake?
Didn't bother to listen, did you?
Doesn't bother you that some of the people responsible for the riot were on the FBI's payroll?
I already said about five months back that it was disturbing that some of the police encouraged the invaders to bypass the barriers. Obviously it would be equally disturbing if other government officials assisted with the invasion.
But I'm not talking about January 6 generally. I just think it's funny that when we talk about the conservative rioters, the game is to downplay their activities as much as possible, but when it's time to talk about public sector involvement, well then yeah sure, it's a riot now.
I've never said it wasn't a riot. I think it was. I think everybody thinks it is. The question is whether it was an insurrection or just a riot? The question is whether it was spontaneous or planned? The question is that if it was planned and the FBI knew about it, why didn't they do something? Anything? Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
I've never said it wasn't a riot. I think it was. I think everybody thinks it is. The question is whether it was an insurrection or just a riot? The question is whether it was spontaneous or planned? The question is that if it was planned and the FBI knew about it, why didn't they do something? Anything? Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
Okay, fair enough. But with pretty much all of Carlson's stuff, show me the evidence.
There are a shitload of people out there who were hoping that Trump was going to do more to upend Washington and were chomping at the bit for an opportunity to help. Wouldn't surprise me if some of those folks held government positions. My guess, based on as much evidence as Carlson has presented so far, is that that's closer to the truth than something planned or orchestrated by a group of feds.
-
@loki said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
So we should have known that various groups have been infiltrated with undercover people. That’s pretty normal every day stuff. My favorite example is the enigma code where moral dilemmas were created when the British knew that people would die but didn’t prevent the event(s) such that the Germans would know and therefore no longer let their secrets and war strategy fall into the wrong hands.
Tucker’s narrative turns this whole thing on its head as if the groups were infiltrated such that they caused the insurrection or at a minimum helped foment something that otherwise would not have happened.
Reminds me of the way Rachel Maddow rearranges info to paint her own partisan stories.
I didn’t think Tucker would go that far and as far as I’m concerned he needs to now prove it, rather than just dangle theories.
Conspiracy theories have gone badly for the GOP. He ought to be more careful.
There are times when an agent must break cover or an informer has to be burned. I would think a riot at the Capitol would warrant such action.
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@loki said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
So we should have known that various groups have been infiltrated with undercover people. That’s pretty normal every day stuff. My favorite example is the enigma code where moral dilemmas were created when the British knew that people would die but didn’t prevent the event(s) such that the Germans would know and therefore no longer let their secrets and war strategy fall into the wrong hands.
Tucker’s narrative turns this whole thing on its head as if the groups were infiltrated such that they caused the insurrection or at a minimum helped foment something that otherwise would not have happened.
Reminds me of the way Rachel Maddow rearranges info to paint her own partisan stories.
I didn’t think Tucker would go that far and as far as I’m concerned he needs to now prove it, rather than just dangle theories.
Conspiracy theories have gone badly for the GOP. He ought to be more careful.
There are times when an agent must break cover or an informer has to be burned. I would think a riot at the Capitol would warrant such action.
So I agree 100% but did not hear that as the thrust of the message which is a shame. I think that aspect warrants a serious investigation.
-
I don't know how anybody can listen to these people for half an hour at a time.
30 minutes of Tucker Carlson, or whoever. Bloody hell.
Or are you supposed to do it in shifts?
Anyway, it's too late now. The video has been removed, presumably by Deep State Operatives in collusion with somebody or other.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@aqua-letifer said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
I thought it was very well established at this point that on January 6 no one actually did anything and it was all an MSM deep fake?
Didn't bother to listen, did you?
Doesn't bother you that some of the people responsible for the riot were on the FBI's payroll?
I already said about five months back that it was disturbing that some of the police encouraged the invaders to bypass the barriers. Obviously it would be equally disturbing if other government officials assisted with the invasion.
But I'm not talking about January 6 generally. I just think it's funny that when we talk about the conservative rioters, the game is to downplay their activities as much as possible, but when it's time to talk about public sector involvement, well then yeah sure, it's a riot now.
I've never said it wasn't a riot. I think it was. I think everybody thinks it is. The question is whether it was an insurrection or just a riot? The question is whether it was spontaneous or planned? The question is that if it was planned and the FBI knew about it, why didn't they do something? Anything? Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
As opposed to the then President of the United States, you mean?
Obviously, he didn't actively participate in it. Not his type of thing at all, getting his hands dirty. But it sure sounded a lot like he ginned them up.
Presumably Tucker didn't talk about that particular government employee?
-
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
As opposed to the then President of the United States, you mean?
Obviously, he didn't actively participate in it. Not his type of thing at all, getting his hands dirty. But it sure sounded a lot like he ginned them up.
Presumably Tucker didn't talk about that particular government employee?
@doctor-phibes said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
As opposed to the then President of the United States, you mean?
Obviously, he didn't actively participate in it. Not his type of thing at all, getting his hands dirty. But it sure sounded a lot like he ginned them up.
Presumably Tucker didn't talk about that particular government employee?
For the thousandth time, since some people either will not or are incapable of acknowledging the truth...At no time did Trump advocate violence on the sixth. Was there heated political rhetoric? Of course. Same as many politicians use in stump speeches or rallies.
-
I didn't say he advocated violence, I said he ginned them up.
I thought it was non-violent? Or was it only the supposed FBI agents who were doing that, the bearded virgins being too busy taking selfies?
-
I didn't say he advocated violence, I said he ginned them up.
I thought it was non-violent? Or was it only the supposed FBI agents who were doing that, the bearded virgins being too busy taking selfies?
@doctor-phibes said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
I didn't say he advocated violence, I said he ginned them up.
I thought it was non-violent? Or was it only the supposed FBI agents who were doing that, the bearded virgins being too busy taking selfies?
The vast majority of people at the rally engaged in no violence. Secondly, answer why the FBI knows some of the conspirators, but will not indict them?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
As opposed to the then President of the United States, you mean?
Obviously, he didn't actively participate in it. Not his type of thing at all, getting his hands dirty. But it sure sounded a lot like he ginned them up.
Presumably Tucker didn't talk about that particular government employee?
For the thousandth time, since some people either will not or are incapable of acknowledging the truth...At no time did Trump advocate violence on the sixth. Was there heated political rhetoric? Of course. Same as many politicians use in stump speeches or rallies.
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@doctor-phibes said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
As opposed to the then President of the United States, you mean?
Obviously, he didn't actively participate in it. Not his type of thing at all, getting his hands dirty. But it sure sounded a lot like he ginned them up.
Presumably Tucker didn't talk about that particular government employee?
For the thousandth time, since some people either will not or are incapable of acknowledging the truth...At no time did Trump advocate violence on the sixth. Was there heated political rhetoric? Of course. Same as many politicians use in stump speeches or rallies.
You are correct from a legal point of view. It’s still a worthy discussion in terms of whether to vote for him or have him be the voice of the GOP go forward.
-
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@doctor-phibes said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
Now, the question is whether people who were informants, or God forbid, FBI agents, ginned up the riot and did they participate in it?
As opposed to the then President of the United States, you mean?
Obviously, he didn't actively participate in it. Not his type of thing at all, getting his hands dirty. But it sure sounded a lot like he ginned them up.
Presumably Tucker didn't talk about that particular government employee?
For the thousandth time, since some people either will not or are incapable of acknowledging the truth...At no time did Trump advocate violence on the sixth. Was there heated political rhetoric? Of course. Same as many politicians use in stump speeches or rallies.
You are correct from a legal point of view. It’s still a worthy discussion in terms of whether to vote for him or have him be the voice of the GOP go forward.
-
@doctor-phibes said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
I didn't say he advocated violence, I said he ginned them up.
I thought it was non-violent? Or was it only the supposed FBI agents who were doing that, the bearded virgins being too busy taking selfies?
The vast majority of people at the rally engaged in no violence. Secondly, answer why the FBI knows some of the conspirators, but will not indict them?
@jolly said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
@doctor-phibes said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
I didn't say he advocated violence, I said he ginned them up.
I thought it was non-violent? Or was it only the supposed FBI agents who were doing that, the bearded virgins being too busy taking selfies?
The vast majority of people at the rally engaged in no violence. Secondly, answer why the FBI knows some of the conspirators, but will not indict them?
I'm a strong believer in Occam's razor. I think it's pretty obvious what happened in January.
All this stuff from Tucker seems rather far-fetched. I didn't watch this latest conspiracy theory, but in general, conspiracy theories are needed when events don't fit your world view. If you're Tucker, you have a very clear idea of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Then suddenly, a bunch of Trump supporters riot, egged on in part by Trump himself. This doesn't fit Tucker's narrative, so he needs to explain it with a conspiracy theory.
-
He's using government documents. The only leap he's making, is exactly who are the unindicted coconspirators?
-
IOW, he's taking the fact that there are people who haven't been prosecuted as evidence that there is some kind of FBI or Deep State conspiracy.
OK, good luck. Another Kraken to unleash.
I'm sure Trump will be re-instated in August.
-
This whole thing seems to be based on nothing. On what basis are the "unindicted co-conspirators" undercover FBI agents? Imagination?
@xenon said in Unindicted Co-conspirators:
This whole thing seems to be based on nothing. On what basis are the "unindicted co-conspirators" undercover FBI agents? Imagination?
Deep State are bad guys, trying to undermine freedom, democracy, and the American Way. Trump supporters are Patriots, standing up for freedom, democracy and the American Way.
A bunch of bad guys rioted in the Capitol.
Ergo, as the Latinos say, they must be Deep State.
-
-
rejecting entrapment claims unless (1) a government agent has truly instigated the crime (it’s not enough to show that a government operative helped matters along if the defendant proposed the scheme) and (2) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime (i.e., he truly was enticed into lawlessness by the government operative).
Was Mr. trump not a government agent?
