Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant

Oh puhleeze. She blamed everyone BUT herself. From the news media, to Russians, to the DNC even.

 

There was no insurrection. A riot yes. Insurrection no. Unless you also want to call all those riots in the spring and summer of 2020 insurrection also? Which you won't will you? Never mind that they tried to set fire to federal buildings. Created autonomous zones in which they did not allow any government entity to enforce the laws. etc etc.

 

Really? I have to explain the difference between an agent and an informer? Are you kidding me? That's not semantics, it's common sense. Do you have to have the difference between a cop and an informant explained too......because it's the same thing.

 

You mean other than being at a rally that Trump called for specially to have the election overturned? "It's going to be wild!!" I believe Trump said. Yeah, they had informants in that group.

 

Do you really believe that the concerted effort by the Russians with disinformation didn't influence voters? They are still doing it to this day and it's working. You seem to want to gloss over the fact that the interviewer said that you don't hear much from Clinton (you don't) except by Trump.....which is true. Why? As far as questioning the results of votes, that's Trumps "move". He did it in 2016 before the election "The only way I can lose is if it's rigged" and is still beating the same drum. He's insane. That's the word for what he is.

 

That's why I posted what I did. However, you didn't like it so you claimed it was off-topic. Since you don't want discuss the topic and just want to deflect, .

 

Yes there was. What was the purpose of them being there at all if not to cause havoc. Name another candidate that had a "rally" on the day that the election is finalized. A "rally" for what? The election was 2 months ago and he lost so let's have a "rally" for the loser? What sense does that make? Oh wait.....because there were "questions" about some of the states and how they handled the voting, which nothing was found, anywhere. It's like looking for Bigfoot. Then, as in now, there is zero evidence of wrongdoing. Court case after court case thrown out or dismissed and yet some still believe that the fix was in......but Russia!!! NO WAY!!

 

The explanation is right there in front of you. Right in the post you're replying to. You are the one deflecting.

 

Ok then 'Bob' enlighten us since you seem to be expert an domestic violence. Exactly how would an informant beat his wife? How would his technique differ exactly from that of an say an FBI agent? Is it duration, choice of blows, location of strikes?Enlighten us.

And once you've done that please explain what the hell your post actually has to do with the subject in question? Domestic violence is endemic scourge in society. So how is the fact that an FBI Agent was arrested for domestic violence remotely relevant to the thread? Other than perhaps as a cheap slur aimed at the entire Agency (because obviously if one agent got arrested for a terrible crime that then obviously they're all hiding something similar. Right?)

 

Being in the 'group' and aware of any and all plans made by that groups leadership is NOT the same thing at all. Especially if those plans are being on a ad hoc basis in the middle something as dynamic and confusing as a riot.'

Nor does it follow that all sub units i.e. people who know each other personally of a group like the Proud Boys (which is geographically disbursed and as much an on-line organization as it is a physical one) will know exactly what another sub-group is planning to do.

So even assuming 'plans' were formulated in advance by some elements (and that is an assumption) there's no reason everyone had to be 'in on it'. Especially if the ones planning 'stronger action' had any desire to maintain secrecy.

Finally given FBIs mandate for dealing with domestic terrorism it would be surprising if they didn't have informants in the Proud Boys and many other groups - which includes left wing groups linked to ANTIFA as well.

 

As persistently as Trump? Did she ever repeatedly use the words like 'fraud' and 'stolen election'. Did she initiate multiple court challenges and recounts after losing, make repeated claims about defective voting machines, accuse senior State officials of involvement in a conspiracy or personally call electoral officers demanding they 'find' more voters for her.

There's complaining about losing and pointing to reasons you think contributed to your loss (even if some of those reasons weren't really the key issue, you were) and there's going full tilt at trying to overturn the result. How much money did Clinton or her backers spend on that?

Yes you can point to similar comments by Clinton, but in terms of the shear scale, volume and amount of effort put into overturning the result of the election she lost? There's no competition. Clinton muttered. Trump roared.

 

FBI Informants don't beat their wives.

FBI Agents do.

I personally have no experience beating a wife. Why don't you go to your local federal building and ask an FBI agent how to do it.

Hmm, why don't you go back and read carefully? All the answers are there. Just a thought.

Seems strange that my post is upsetting so many people if it is off-topic and irrelevant. Should've been ignored if that was the case.

But hey, you're just deflecting, right? That's why you won't directly address it.

 

I think it was a Granny Selfie Convention myself along with some FBI instigators at the beginning.

 

Its upsetting because it is off topic, offensive, irrelevant and also fact free. Lets start with this whopper 'FBI Informants don't beat their wives.'

And you know this how exactly? Gone you've said - prove it. How exactly do you know this a fact?

Then there' s 'Why don't you go to your local federal building and ask an FBI agent how to do it.' Now your asserting all FBI Agents are wife beaters (Well at least the male ones). Again - prove it of you can, present the facts supporting your claim Thirdly its not being ignored because its offensive to parties not in a positiom to defend themselves..

As for 'Seems strange that my post is upsetting so many people if it is off-topic and irrelevant. Should've been ignored if that was the case' .

OK , how about this claim: 'All PF contributors named <COMMENTS EDITED> are child molesters?'. Is it 'on topic'? Is it 'relevant'? Should it be 'ignored'? <COMMENTS EDITED>

Don't worry, instead of giving yourself a headache trying to work it out the answer I'll do it for you.

The answer is YES it is off topic and because of that its also irrelevant. Which according to you only leaves with 'should it be ignored'? The answer? No it should not. And that's because any such claim, made as this one was without evidence in a setting where the person or persons being defamed can't defend themselves absolutely needs to be called out, addressed and challenged on the forums like this.

So don't worry I'll now refute the claim made above on your behalf. This claim has no merit. This is because no evidence was produced by the poster confirming the statement. Since it hasn't and cannot be proven it should be and is immediately withdrawn. Something I doubt we'll never see you do regarding your claim about the FBI and domestic violence.

And PS none of this would have been necessary BTW if you had the fainest clew about law enforcement and how it worked. and the the difference between sworn, salaried employees of the FBI and registered civilians who feed them intelligence and or evidence in accordance with legally approved, court recognized and well documented protocols.

 

So your excuse is he wasn't a very good informant?? ROFL I don't think there has been much leadership shown in this group but that would be the JOB of the informant and if this mystery leadership didn't inform the rest of the group the plan how were they going to pull it off. Read the OP no evidence of preplanning or any plan to harm of kill anyone. And as you said I would not be and am not surprised the FBI had such informantsS. Are you saying they were all this bad they didn't see this grand plot you are claiming?

 

Informant for the FBI are agents of the FBI - but they are not "Special Agents".

Isn't that special?

 

Yup. Every time there is trouble, there are FBI dirtbags inciting violence.

FBI Dirtbags "undercover"​

 

The FBI has a long history of instigating criminal violence.

 

Oops!

 

Almost all of the FBI Special Agents working from the field offices are excellent professional criminal investigators, but the hydra seems to be rotting from the heads. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Andrew Weissman, Sally Yates, Robert Mueller, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Bill Briestap, Peter Strzok, James Rybecki, Johnathan Moffa, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, David Bowdich

 

Oh Horseshit.
Not ONE whistle blower during the whitewash of Hillary and the full on attack on Trump.
Not ONE leaker of any of the fraud that occurred in the illegal spying operation on the Trump Administration.
Not ONE resignation in protest over the complete lack of integrity being shown by the FBI.

Everyone in the FBI knows how corrupt they are and they ALL kept their mouths shut.
Save the crime lab, disband the rest and roll their essential operations into the US Marshalls service. An example needs to be made of what happens when a law enforcement agency is a bunch of dirtbags framers and felons.

It's not like the FBI doesn't know how to leak, this is a felony they commit casually when it helps them commit crimes, but not ONE leak in sevice of protecting the integrity of the FBI. Why? It has no integrity to protect.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, I like the myth of the FBI as much as anyone, but, it's all bullshit and that's a hard truth that needs to be squarely faced.

Look at what these vile bastards did to the US gymnasts, young girls being serially raped. They buried it, falsified reports, one of the FBI dirt bags then tried to get a job with the USOC and the rapes continued for another three years.

You can make excuses for them, I won't. I want them to turn in OUR guns and OUR uniforms and face the justice they richly deserve.

 

ABOLISH THE FBI AND TAKE THE TAPES: Gaetz, Greene call on FBI to release 14,000 hours of footage from Jan 6.

If the footage supported the Left's claim, they would have already been leaked.
Since the footage shows their claims are lies, they are fighting disclosure tooth and nail, and since the Right are not leakers, no leaks.

Turn The Tapes Over, Bitches!​

Were the Inciters The Dirt Bag FBI Folks?

Weird how the dirty leakers are always in the service of the Left, but, we never get leaks in service of the Right. It's almost like the Leakers are on the Left and not on the Right. Meanwhile, if the FBI dirtbags were the inciters, the folks in the FBI have known this for over 9 months. Where are the "rank and file of deep integrity" leakers, whistleblowers and those resigning rather than serve a lie?

If they were terrorists in Gitmo, leftwing lawyers would be representing them for free and demanding they be treated humanely. But, since they are GOP protesters, it's ok to shoot them dead even if unarmed.

Why are the dirtbag prosecutors hiding the tapes?

Indeed, so why do the Dirtbag Prosecutors continue to hide them?

 

You obviously have zero experience in 'running' informants (I have at least some ). Firstly its a universal rule that you don't get the informants you want or need. Instead you get the informants you have. Informants are who they are, they know who they know and are involved in what their involved in. Despite what you see in the movies they are not 'plug in and play' assets and certainly not disposable ones. You can't just tell them 'go there and do that'! then drop them in the middle of a group of criminals they don't & who don't know them! Care to hazard a guess at what would happen if you tried?

The second rule flows from the first and is that there's a world of difference between an informant providing you with passively collected intelligence (stuff they're heard or seen or been told by chance) and tasking an informant with active intelligence gathering for a specific purpose. This usually requires careful consideration and planning before you proceed. You also generally need approval at a senior level, a formal risk assessment and depending on the level of risk other stuff I won't talk about. This is because Police have a duty of care for their informants. All of which makes positioning informants into new networks (assuming you can do it at all) time consuming, resource intensive and frustrating as hell. It can be done but it's slow and comes with no guarantee of success. Especially as (per rule one) you don't get to pick the informants you want. Which means a lot of the time you get .. well lets call them the low hanging fruit on the criminal tree. So not 007.

The third rule is informants lie. You never trust anything they say on face value until its been corroborated independently, at least until they've built up a history as reliable and accurate sources of intelligence. This is because informants have a variety of motives for assisting authorities, including a desire by criminals to gain insight into who and what the Agency is currently interested in/looking at. Another being to direct you toward competitors activities so they get taken out. Informers can inform in both directions.

There you've now had an education on informants and the pitfalls of using them. For the rest?

Re-read my post I didn't say there was evidence. I said that given the nature of the operating environment (the riot) and the structure of the groups involved the existence of a 'plan' developed by some of the people involved could not be ruled out. Not everyone some. Which also explains why a limited number of informants would not be aware of the 'plan' (assuming it existed). They were simply attached to the wrong groups. It also doesn't mean the 'plan' would have been a good one, was practical or would have had a chance of succeeding. It just means some people may have been stupid enough to try if given the chance.

I hope that clarifies my position. For whatever reason you obviously wish to assume no plan existed. I'm not making any assumptions - I'll wait to see what the evidence shows.

 

I don't give a TWIT about your conjecture and postulations and suppositions and claims of authority and what experience I do or do not have. They do NOT refute what is being reported HERE. When you have something let me know. I am not assuming I am relaying what law enforcement is reporting, you are not.

 

What part of 'I'll wait to see what the evidence shows.' do you fail to grasp?

There's no evidence of conspiracy etc? Well good. Unlike you however I'm not making any assumptions about what the ultimate outcome of the investigation will show. I'll simply wait till its done.

As for my 'claims of authority'. You can always contact me privately to discuss. Failing that show it to some other LEO and get their opinion of my 'rules'.