Glad I actually checked before posting this. I just got an alert over your emoji, and was going to call you out. If you don't actually tag me, I won't actually see your response. But, since I wrote this before seeing your response, I'll just post what I previously wrote and address your questions.
A conspiracy is an easy tool to go after something, or defend against something. You don't need concrete evidence, you just need a lot of inference.
In this situation, the right knows that they are in trouble, but they are trying to mitigate the damage, the optics, by alluding to some conspiracy to help them get out of trouble. And that is latching onto any crumb they can find, regardless of how damaging, or hypocritical, it is.
The FBI monitors extremist groups - they even monitor the BLM protests, with people in it. And there were several right-wing extremist groups that day. They don't like to disclose certain information to make it harder form them to infiltrate these groups. But they did warn the capital police in the weeks leading up to Jan 6th of trouble, who ignored those warning.
So, I don't think you want to go down this line of argument that the FBI helped to instigate the attacks by a mob that was all to willing, unless you want to allow the same argument to be used for BLM.
At 1/12/22 10:27 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
At 1/12/22 06:00 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:
At 1/11/22 11:35 PM, GenericDungeonSlime wrote:
If we lived in a better country than we do, I think we would all be able to agree that the intelligence agencies should be made to be answer questions - from the government that supposedly oversees them no less! - about how much they were involved and whether or not they committed violence.
It is just the biggest pet peeve of mine when people decide to answer a simple yes or no question with meandering legalese-speak.
Since they can’t answer a yes or no question, it’s safe to assume possibly every bad actor was either influenced by a fed, or one themselves.
I regret not posting this on page 1: every single person that showed up on 1/6 (over 1,000,000 people) was called by this picture:
What really gets me, and what ultimately convinces me that Ted Cruz was right on the money, was how they tried to deny the allegations in a *non-legally binding* tweet on Twitter dot com, but refused to use any official method that could hold them accountable if they are lying. They didn't bring the person in question on the stand under oath. They didn't even let the other members interview or speak to him. They released a twitter statement and got the media to repeat it. Even then, they got ratioed hard. Most people don't care about Jan. 6th, but if they do, they want honesty.
This is the prosecuting party in this investigation, and they are actively trying to withhold information and manipulate the process once the question of feds and instigators was involved. That says it all and, as far as i'm concerned, they have discredited themselves utterly. Refusing the answer the questions when asked under oath casts extreme doubt on any answer they try to give later that carries no penalty and comes with no evidence.
Edy, if you truly believe this, find me the video where the person in question was interviewed by the committee. You can't. Why? Because it doesn't exist. The entire thing is online for anyone to view. You won't find this person as part of the proceedings. What actually happened, that the lying media fails to mention on purpose, is that the FBI denied any knowledge of him despite being on the most wanted list, and showing up in multiple videos known by the committee trying to incite people to enter the building. They later put a message out *on Twitter* saying that they had interviewed him and he said he wasn't a fed or fed asset.
The article was over a Republican Rep. response, or is he just RINO planted by the Democrats?
...which brings up more questions than it solves. Question the first, why was he interviewed privately by the democrat members instead of being put before the actual committee, under oath, to answer questions? The only reason they wouldn't is because they are peddling a lie.
Okay, so he might have been privately interviewed, but what does that mean if we include the following?
Question the second, why is he not arrested when literally everyone else is, when they know him and his crimes by name and he was on the most wanted list? Only someone who was a fed or a fed asset would be protected in such a manner.
For what? What crimes? What evidence? This is a lie that you are mindlessly repeating from the right. All there is is video footage of him egging people to enter the capital, but that's it. There is no evidence that he broke any law. There is no evidence that he beat up any capital police, or even entered the building, or destroying-stealing stuff - these are what people are being arrested for, silly, not because they are poor innocent victims. And there are plenty of people saying the same thing about storming the capital - but that is not an arrestable offense. He was just a person of interest to the FBI. That's it. He was not on the most wanted list.
Nor is there evidence that he is, or have, ever worked for the FBI, in any capacity. That was just an unfounded rumor.
Question the third, why are all the normal rules of procedure being broken when it comes to this particular person? All the behavior up to this point looks like a cover up of some sort.
Again, what crime did he actually commit? Or how is he, out of the hundreds who expressed storming the capital that day, the most important person. He was just one of many who expressed it. There is actual video evidence showing people who instigated the actual charging into the capital. This is what the right is desperately trying to cover up with this red hearing.
If you can't even answer these most basic of questions about the absolutely massive holes in their story I don't know what to tell you, the break from reality is simply too strong.
Apparently, this is your first congressional investigation. I've have followed several, mostly with Republicans either having closed door sessions over Iraq, or trying to play Kabuki theater with things like Fast and Furious, and Benghazi, where they magnified the claims, and selectively leaked information to the press that benefited their narratives, while denying other information as part of national security that undermined that narrative, only to release reports that were often inconclusive.
So, far, I'm not seeing any actual evince of this claim over Ray Epps, other than Right-wing figures promoting a lot of rumors and lies as fact. You could always show this evidence, if you are so convinced of this conspiracy, instead of a lot of baseless inferences. But I doubt you can, since you are so convinced by a right-wing conspiracy that came out of their ass.
