sidebar

Tucker makes claim that Jan 6th was inside job planned by the FBI

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
CowboyJD

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
#22
Dec 10, 2004
18,764
20,595
1,743
#22
PJ-OSU said:
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the fact that there a few active investigations ongoing has anything to do with releasing evidence. Maybe I am mistaken though. Better question for @CowboyJD
Click to expand...
More than 400 ongoing investigations and prosecutions....that's clearly the reason it hasn't been released to the public.

But Cim's never gonna accept an answer that conflicts with his BDS in any way...the cognitive dissonance would be too much for him to handle.
 
Duke Silver

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
#23
Sep 17, 2004
29,661
14,103
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#23
I guess we missed this little nugget: "Revolver.news is a news site and turned out to be one of the last honest outlets on the internet. A new piece on the site suggests an answer to some of these questions." God, I fell for the title, the facepalms and the tweets and watched. Again stupidly misleading at best. Maybe we should read or watch what we are facepalming before we post. Maybe??
 
TheMonkey

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
#24
Sep 16, 2004
5,845
2,553
1,743
47
DFW
#24
I read this article. Not just the headline, in case you’re wondering.

Among the other possible reasons someone might be listed as an unindicted co-conspirator:
  • The government doesn’t know who they are.
  • The government doesn’t have sufficient evidence to indict them and wants to avoid impugning their reputations or compromising ongoing investigations.
  • They have secured leniency from the government for cooperation with investigations into others.
 
llcoolw

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
#25
Feb 7, 2005
7,421
3,511
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#25
So for argument sake let’s just say the fbi did infiltrate the groups in question. Furthermore, let’s say the fbi did encourage the groups’ excitement levels and told them they had rapid response teams actually set up to attack the capital. Lastly, let’s assume the groups believed the fbi infiltrators.

Does that count as entrapment?
Not sure it does.
 
Art Vandelay

Art Vandelay

Deputy
#26
Nov 23, 2010
1,129
571
1,743
#26
As a general rule, if you're talking about doing crimes with someone on the internet, you should assume that's an FBI agent who will not actually do the crimes with you.

Don't do crimes, but if you must, don't plan them with your internet friends.
 
CowboyJD

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
#28
Dec 10, 2004
18,764
20,595
1,743
#28
llcoolw said:
So for argument sake let’s just say the fbi did infiltrate the groups in question. Furthermore, let’s say the fbi did encourage the groups’ excitement levels and told them they had rapid response teams actually set up to attack the capital. Lastly, let’s assume the groups believed the fbi infiltrators.

Does that count as entrapment?
Not sure it does.
Click to expand...
It doesn't.
 
Duke Silver

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
#29
Sep 17, 2004
29,661
14,103
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#29
Art Vandelay said:
As a general rule, if you're talking about doing crimes with someone on the internet, you should assume that's an FBI agent who will not actually do the crimes with you.

Don't do crimes, but if you must, don't plan them with your internet friends.
Click to expand...
This is always correct
 
wrenhal

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
#35
Aug 11, 2011
11,370
4,363
1,743
#35
You must log in or register to reply here.