As I predicted, The January 6th insurrHOAXion starts to come unraveled

Could be. Could is a word that means nothing. You use a word that is meaningless. Couching an opinion with the word could simply means you advance an opinion you can not prove.

You could be a Russian spambot. And? I could be a shapeshifting Draco having sex with Hilary Clinton so? We done?

 

Alexsander I wish I had some vodka to salute you. Lol.

 

Further to Comrade Ulyanov's theory.

 

I for one found the way Sanborn answered the questions very suspicious. From the Post story:

"“My question to you -- and this is not an ordinary law enforcement question, this is a question of public accountability — did federal agents or those in service of federal agents actively encourage violent and criminal conduct on Jan. 6?” he asked.

Sanborn responded by saying she couldn’t disclose “sources and methods.”"

At this point, and certainly preparing for a Congressional testimony, Sandborn would have known if their were FBI assets on the ground who encouraged violent and criminal conduct. If the answer was no, she should have just said so. Nothing in that would have given away sources and methods.

"“Ms. Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?” asked Cruz after stating that Epps was captured on video the night of Jan. 5, 2021 rousing people to “get into the Capitol.”

“Sir, I cannot answer that question,” replied Sanborn, who added that she was “aware of the individual,” but didn’t have “specific background” on him."

Does it make sense to you that at this point she would not know if Epps was an asset or suspect?

It strains credulity that this testimony isn't dishonest (if not technically lying). But it seemed OK to you?

 

No your article shows two questions that were not answered and a lot of supposition on your part and the articles part. That is not any % proof.
Is it unusual for an investigative agency to not answer questions about an ongoing investagation?

 

I'd be careful casting stones with some of the ridiculous things you like to post

 

My comment was simply addressing the fallacy that the not answering of questions does not make the question true.

Given the context of a few sentences without knowing any real details about people like Sanborn or Epps I would never pass judgement based on the suspicion of those answers. Perhaps if I had the ability to ask follow up questions or investigated the details more I would pose a theory but I have no where near the information to go beyond what I originally said, which is: Not answering a question does not make the question true. As I said to the op if that is the new standard for proof then we are in serious trouble.

 

Not answering a question doesn't make the answer true, but deliberately obfuscating raises red flags, and that's what happened.

 

So you are saying that because the FBI security agency refused to openly answer two questions about an ongoing investigation what you and others imagine must be true?

 

See it how you want. My job is done here. Facts don’t care about your feelings and these are cold hard facts
Cruz just took the entire left to school
Love it!

 

If there was an insurrection and the FBI had not infiltrated the crowd, i would feel that the FBI failed to do their job.

That said, I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that Epps was working for the FBI other than people making that accusation.

 

What a total pile of bullshit^^^. So, enjoy the free bump!

 

Cruz yet another dying man grasping at straws.

 

Yes but lets say we agree that there are red flags. The further problem is using those red flags as evidence for the question being true. What red flags mean to me is more details are necessary.

He first answer seems plausible to me. She answered she couldn’t disclose “sources and methods.” Has their been evidence presented where this statement is not true?

The next 2 question was about Ray Epps. A person I am only vaguely familiar with because of some threads on this forum. I did a quick google and scanned through this page. This is my only source so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
https://www.snopes.com/articles/389126/who-is-ray-epps/

So lets assume Epps is not a federal agent. Sanborn answer the question:

“Ms. Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?” asked Cruz after stating that Epps was captured on video the night of Jan. 5, 2021 rousing people to “get into the Capitol.”

“Sir, I cannot answer that question,” replied Sanborn, who added that she was “aware of the individual,” but didn’t have “specific background” on him.

She may have heard about him but has no knowledge of him being a federal agent. If he is not that statement is totally true.

The final question was not even a question but a statement from Cruz. Sanborn simply answered she couldn't answer whether Epps urged them to knock down the barricades. At best if we take Cruz's statement at facevalue Epps was seen talking to rioters moments before they ripped down police barricades.

 

So the poster doesn't believe what he could see with his own eyes???????

 

In regards to the "sources and methods" answer, Cruz didn't ask if the FBI had agents on the ground, or their identities, he asked if they "actively encourage violent and criminal conduct ." That has nothing to do with sources and methods.

Anyway, I already said that failing to answer the question doesn't mean the answer is automatically true. I don't know why you are bringing up that same thing again.

 

Why are Trump supporters still trying to deny that they violently broke into the Capitol and tried to stop the vote count for the Presidential election they lost ?

 

"A lot of people are concerned' Cruz says, as if. No, a lot of fools who believe the right wing TPM are concerned.


Obviously, the line of questioning is predicated on the premise that the FBI caused 1/6 by field operatives on whose mission was a false flag operation to make Trump and republicans look bad and be guilty.

Now then, her refusal to acknowledge who the operative was doesn't prove anything because...

1. The FBI has a legitimate reason to not disclose sources and methods.
2. The FBI has plants in the field posing as members of hate groups, white supremacists, in order to find to more about how they operate, where they plan on attacking, etc, and in the case of 1/6, might have had one or two tagging along to keep face and not blow the FOs cover.

Now, what the right wing TPM is trying to do is construe this into a false flag op, whereby it wasn't Trump that caused 1/6, it was the FBI.

This strategy by the right will hit a dead end for one reason, and one reason only:

It's ridiculous.

And this line of questioning with a false premise is entirely consistent that the very people who would acquiesce to Donald Trump, after being humiliated by him (Ted Cruz comes to mind), would be the same people accusing the FBI.

 

After whining all morning about personal attacks, does't it seem a trifle hypocritical that suddenly they are ok for you to engage in. Not a question. Just curious, has anything you've ever cited from Talkingpointsmemo ever turned out to be true?

 

It is sad to see this happening. Democrats just seem to only ever be interested in their ability to tell other folks what to do. It's like a complex or something.

 

It's worse than that.. they want to tell you how to think and what to say.

 

Not necessarily. Why? Because it's a grey area. The field ops have to be convincing so as to not blow their cover.

We, assuming the FBI has their **** together, should give them the benefit of the doubt, such that:

1. Field ops will act in ways so as to not blow their cover, but.....
2. They won't take the lead on any planned ops by hate groups, militias, etc

 

Good thing we have a committee looking into all the aspects, and inspector Cruz for assistance!

 

We'll just look around here on any given day, I don't need to know what I think and believe I've got all the Democrats here to do that for me!!!

 

That's right. Run away.