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.

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
19,283
11,109
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
#41
Because, despite all the pearl clutching, it was the lamest excuse for an “insurrection“ in the history of the world.
I'd argue that it was pretty effective. It didn't come close to accomplishing it's purpose but it did enough to create a level of distrust in our electoral process. Aside from 2000 there hasn't been an election in our lifetime where one side thought they got screwed. And in that one the second it was decided the losing candidate conceded because that's what people who don't win elections do. This one, the losing candidate did everything he could do to undercut our electoral process and convinced a significant number of Americans that he was right.

If you don't believe me, fine, but here is what happened to Pence this week

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.y...traitor-by-hecklers-in-florida-192753694.html

You can't whitewash the insurrection when a significant number of people still believe it was justified.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,048
2,292
1,743
#42
Aside from 2000 there hasn't been an election in our lifetime where one side thought they got screwed. .
Hillary Clinton say hi.

Clinton from an October 2020 interview “There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease

Sure , sounds like one side thought they got screwed in 2016.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#43
Hillary Clinton say hi.

Clinton from an October 2020 interview “There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease

Sure , sounds like one side thought they got screwed in 2016.
Selectively taking one sentence out of the context of the entire paragraph says hi.

I don’t recall Hillary 2016 flagwavers crashing the Capitol and delaying the EC with force and violence.

I don’t recall 50+ losing lawsuits attempting to overturn the results.

I don’t recall a Hillary rally where she was telling her supporters to march down to the Capitol and fight to keep their country because she won by a “landslide” and everybody knows it.

That quote doesn’t even say anything close to “we got screwed” or refusing to concede or anything else Trump and the Trumpers said or did.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,347
2,716
1,743
47
DFW
#44
Selectively taking one sentence out of the context of the entire paragraph says hi.

I don’t recall Hillary 2016 flagwavers crashing the Capitol and delaying the EC with force and violence.

I don’t recall 50+ losing lawsuits attempting to overturn the results.

I don’t recall a Hillary rally where she was telling her supporters to march down to the Capitol and fight to keep their country because she won by a “landslide” and everybody knows it.

That quote doesn’t even say anything close to “we got screwed” or refusing to concede or anything else Trump and the Trumpers said or did.
Like I stated before, I didn’t vote for Hillary and I made fun of the people who cried because Trump won. But nothing Hillary did jeopardized our democracy.

Trump went to unprecedented levels. Period.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#45
Like I stated before, I didn’t vote for Hillary and I made fun of the people who cried because Trump won. But nothing Hillary did jeopardized our democracy.

Trump went to unprecedented levels. Period.
I didn’t vote for her either. Didn’t vote for Biden in 2020 either.

Only a blind partisan mope like cable would even try to make the false equivalence between the two.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,048
2,292
1,743
#46
I didn’t vote for her either. Didn’t vote for Biden in 2020 either.

Only a blind partisan mope like cable would even try to make the false equivalence between the two.
It is easy to conveniently forget facts.
TDS - truth denial syndrome.
Somewhere George Santayana is shaking his head at our TDS sufferers who are willfully blind to anything that doesn’t support their perceptions.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,048
2,292
1,743
#48
Hillary Clinton conceded the night of the election.
1) never said she didn’t concede the election
2) also never attempted to make an equivalence between 2020 and previous elections where one side thought they got screwed

If you want to deny history, that’s on you and JD. But absolutely one side publicly stated they got screwed even in the most immediate election prior to 2020.

How many times did some House members, on the House floor, object to certifying the 2016 results and claiming Russia interference, Russia collusion, voting rights violations, and civil rights violations? Hint: multiple times.
It’s been 4 years and Hillary is still saying this.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#49
It is easy to conveniently forget facts.
TDS - truth denial syndrome.
Somewhere George Santayana is shaking his head at our TDS sufferers who are willfully blind to anything that doesn’t support their perceptions.
Your lack of self-awareness exhibited in accusing others of this is frankly quite astonishing.

Maybe even a little bit frighteningly creepy.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,658
3,557
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#51
Here’s a story on the very subject and less than a week after the attack. Shows a fbi that knew and one that didn’t know. About par for the course.

Did The FBI Know About The Capitol Riot Before It Happened?
a group of people wearing military uniforms
WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 06: Protesters gather on the second day of pro-Trump events fueled by President Donald Trump’s continued claims of election fraud in an to overturn the results before Congress finalizes them in a joint session of the 117th Congress on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

On Tuesday, new details emerged regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) knowledge of the attack on the Capitol prior to January 6 — and they show that the agency knew how fair dangerous extremists might take things. According to a report from the FBI, the day before the rioters stormed Congress, their office issued an internal warning that extremists were traveling to Washington to commit violence and “war.”

The report, which was written up by the FBI Norfolk office, warned of a dire scene that was threatened to unfold last Wednesday. “As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington, D.C.,” the report outlines. “An online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating, ‘Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Antifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.’”

But this is a pretty significant departure to how the FBI originally downplayed their knowledge of the attack. In fact, it directly contradicts a previous statement from a senior official that said the bureau had no information that indicated anyone at the riot planned to do actual harm. Last Friday, the head of the FBI’S Washington Field Office, Steven D’Antuono, said there had been “no indication” of anything planned for January 6 “other than First Amendment-protected activity.” Similarly, the author of the internal report expressed that putting a stop to the event that the extremists had planned might encroach on the their free speech rights.

Many have pointed out, though, that the same concern was not granted to organizers who conducted anti-racism protests in June. “Individuals/Organizations named in this [situational information report] have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the report stated. By contrast, the National Guard was repeatedly employed at Black Lives Matter protests and the FBI frequently arrested protesters in 2020 for exercising their free speech to criticize the government and attend demonstrations.

At least five people died during Wednesday’s insurrection, which could have amounted into livestreamed assassinations if it went on any further. And yet this warning, which the FBI had clear knowledge of, is the most damning piece of evidence yet that the event could have been stopped in its tracks by the government. Clearly, the failure was not about lack of intelligence but failure to act on the information. Still, an FBI official who spoke with The Washington Post explained that while they knew of the threats, they did not know the identities of the online users who were making the statements about the coming “war.”

Agencies that received the internal report from the FBI were also “requested not to take action” based on the reporting “without prior coordination with the FBI.” And for many weeks leading up to January 6, the FBI waived away concerns about Trump voters being upset enough about the election to pose a serious enough security threat.

Now, the FBI continues to face many questions about why it didn’t do more, and why they were so unprepared to handle the mass violence. Going forward, it’s likely that the Bureau will once again be much more widely scrutinized for who it targets and who it chooses to let proceed with true threats. It’s also likely, given the evidence, that the bureau will have to more intensely reexamine what’s considered “free speech” — and what’s actually violence.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d...e-capitol-riot-before-it-happened/ar-BB1cHjlu


After reading the bolded part, the realm of possibility has been breeched.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,048
2,292
1,743
#53
Your lack of self-awareness exhibited in accusing others of this is frankly quite astonishing.

Maybe even a little bit frighteningly creepy.
Rich coming from JD/olderschool. At least you are consistent with your truth and fact denial.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#54
Here’s a story on the very subject and less than a week after the attack. Shows a fbi that knew and one that didn’t know. About par for the course.

.......

Still, an FBI official who spoke with The Washington Post explained that while they knew of the threats, they did not know the identities of the online users who were making the statements about the coming “war.”

.......

After reading the bolded part, the realm of possibility has been breeched.
The bolded part just reflects the difference between raw intelligence that something could (even likely will) happen and actionable intelligence that gives you enough information to actually take police action against perpetrators.

In other words, the difference between “knowing” SOMETHING is gonna happen and knowing what is going to happen with enough to go on to actually take action against individuals beyond taking a stand ready and on alert position.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#55
Rich coming from JD/olderschool. At least you are consistent with your truth and fact denial.
So you’re admitting you’re were black kettle when you made your original post calling people out for tds (truth denial syndrome).

Got it.:thumbup:
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#56
Rich coming from JD/olderschool. At least you are consistent with your truth and fact denial.
And by posting jd/olderschool, are you accusing me of having a sock and me being both of those?

If so.....much lulz you dolt. I never have and never will utilize a sock puppet account.
 
Last edited:

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
19,283
11,109
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
#57
Hillary Clinton say hi.

Clinton from an October 2020 interview “There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease

Sure , sounds like one side thought they got screwed in 2016.
1. Hello HDS. I swear the only people that care about Hillary these days are Republicans who can't get over her being your personal boogeyman for 15-20 years. I get that you are trying to go a gotcha thing but she's a female version of Walter Mondale so history will barely remember her. It's weird that she still gets traction but seeing as how the current President is about as vanilla as it gets I guess she is a soft target for people who prefer division over repairing political wounds.

On a sidenote-cool thing about Mondale. He was born in Ceylon MN which is a 15 minute drive from where I live. Good thing he was born in the 20's and not in this era, because that town is straight trash.

2. The argument was over Russian interference and not the results of the election. They were able to influence the election in 2016 and they were able to in 2020. They were trying to throw it for Bernie in the democratic primary. They didn't care who won but wanted chaos and were pretty effective at doing that. The difference was when it came out that they were pushing for Sanders he did everything he could to be transparent and distance himself form their attempts. Trump allegedly courted it because he was less concerned about coming across as a statesman and more concerned about winning. But whatever their influence was they didn't cheat on the actual vote. Trump won because he got more votes in key states and that was that. No one questioned the legitimacy of the vote count. 4 years later and he lost so he questioned the legitimacy of the vote count. They are two entirely different things.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,658
3,557
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#58
No answer here?

Which means what to you? Why do you make such implicit statements without clear conclusions? I think I know why.
Because I never conclude. I wasn’t there. I really haven’t a clue. I googled the subject in the title and this story asking that very question popped up. The fact that the story was written 5 days after the event is noteworthy and relevant.

If you want to know personally what my perception of what happened it’s this:

Jan 6 was advertised across multiple right wing, independent, left wing, conspiracy, and even gambling forums. It was a known event to the general public for at least a month.

I knew of several groups that I was following on social platforms discuss transportation, lodging, times for speeches. Yes, I even saw talk about disrupting the events. By both far sides.

I actually never watched a Trump rally or cared enough to either way. So I was stunned when I heard Trump tell the crowd to go make noise outside the capital.

I only knew he said that because I was even more stunned that groups of people were prowling all over DC unencumbered. And they were claiming they were told to by the president.

Watching pissed off protesters or whatever they were trying to tear down granite with their bare hands was disconcerting. Watching mob mentality take over was nothing new at this point and seemed just about the right about madness matching the times.

Then the gunshot. Flashes of hand to hand violence. But where was the great attack? Surely someone planned at least one objective or hostage or manifesto or sit in or chain themselves to something or take over the buildings with weapons or fire or clear leadership or….then I realized it was not nearly as planned as their forums, tweets, posts and videos made them out to be.

Then the news of the dead and injured. And for what? Americans killing Americans for democrats and republicans. Pathetic. So all I can do is stimulate the conversation.

The bolded part shows two interesting points.
1. FBI admits they knew in advance that people online are gearing up for “war”.
2. The FBI says they don’t know the identities of the online users.
Let number 2 be read twice.

When I first started my comments they were my typical satirical yet maybe not, kind. As the thread grew, I’ve actually gone from zero possibilities to there’s a .001 chance that they (FBI)were there in some capacity, still not sure I give any possibility to the FBI orchestrating the event.

Still not sure I’ve concluded