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

Hence the reason for a trial.

 

You watch too much fake news BS.

 

That's a nice theory, but you'll still need predication for a 'special counsel' investigation. Whatever Cruz does, it won't amount to much.

 

Well, by the House committee's own standards, I feel as though I've met both preponderance of evidence as well as probability. So seeing that, I feel we have the right to examine(beyond the persona of Ray Epps, I'm not focused on a singular possible mole.) I want to rule out any and all moles. And the FBI assistant didn't have the right answer, in fact her answer met my preponderence. These sources and methods, in this instance I don't feel served America. For even for the sake of their arrest, as Biden said it "endangered democracy".

 

This 'FBI false flag' suspicion of the right is a dead end. A waste of effort.

 

Not even 'false flag', the event is very real. But was it aided and abetted by our own law enforcement officials? Again, the FBI's assistant answer should be unsettling to you. She should have been able to say "absolutely not". Instead, she said "sources and methods". Well, sorry this is a matter where sources and methods don't apply.

 

No my argument is that the FBI might jeopardise OTHER operations. We would have to know the full particulars here though, and I think that is the whole idea.

 

Sorry no I don't watch much CNN at all. Being lied to ain't my thing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/us/politics/justice-dept-domestic-terrorism.html and a operation like the J6 frame up is just what they need. Those damned Tea party types were just too lawful and patriotic.. so they created the J6 incident.

 

Nonsense. Go look up entrapment cases. Each case is fact specific and never are any clear. Next even if we engage in the bullshit speculation you do, removing a barrier is entrapment? That to you is a clear cut case? All the violence and illegality only happened because a bbarrier was removed? Is that what you are arguing? For it to be clear cut, the removal of a barrier in itself would have to be concluded as triggering all the violence, vandalism. Are you that absurd in trying to excuse what happened and blame it on a supposed FBI operative that you want to try suggest a removal of a barrier absolves anyone and everyone from what they did at Capital Hill including your beloved leader? Really?

Give it a rest man. Clear cut. Right.

 

Do you ever finish an allegation you start? What measures. Finish the sentence. Just once finish your accusation. What measures? The more you fling allegations you can't even define the more you appear to make delusional references. Just once try focus in a sentence and complete your accusation.

 

What does that mean. Can you as well finish an accusation? Who are these tea party types and how were they too lawful and patriotic?

Why do you speak in veiled, indirect, passive aggressive terms? Can you as well speak directly to what you claim? Can you do that?
Can any of you Trumpets?

If you are claiming people who support Trump have not been violent enough say so. Have the intellectual integrity to say you think their violence is justified and peaceful demonstrations are "too lawful and patriotic" and you prefer violence to express pro Trump believes. Don't couch it have the integrity to say you justify and support illegal violent actions. Your backhanded reference to applauding violence is there for all to say and so is your need to phrase it in such a clumsy passive aggressive manner.

 

Thanks for that equivocation.

https://lyricstranslate.com/en/idiom/you-cant-suck-and-blow-same-time

 

Of course he "looks suspicious" to you. So there we have it. You look at some videos and offer a subjective assumption of "suspicion". What about all the others engaged in violence? Did you notice them? Did you find anything suspicious about how they looked? Did you find anything suspicious in the comments Trump made just before the "walk" to Capital Hill? Did you find it suspicious he never went when he said he would? Do you find it suspicious while the violence went on for 2 hours Trump would not denounce it and when he finally did speak he defended the riot not condemn it? Well? Your suspicions or lack thereof are why you are challenged when you into this op late and try take things oyut of their actual context of what Omni or anyone else said because you have a pro Trump agenda.

Instead of trying to pose as confused by what someone said-just state your opinions man. All of you Trumpets need to stop posing and couching your words and speak directly as to what you accuse others of. Just do that. Speak up. Defend your beliefs that Trump is a great President and you support what went on at Capital Hill. Strop posing as if the FBI is responsible for what happened and you are confused.

You aint confused, you know exactly what you choose to see and not see.

 

Nope removing the barrier isn't the only thing he did. He encouraged them to enter the building. He encouraged them to act illegally. But nice try.

 

I heard this morning that Trump's inner circle did not trust him to deliver the "stand down" speech live. I can't blame them.

 

According to leftists who want to use 1/6 to throw in jail as many people including their colleagues if at all possible.

 

I don't think anyone is hedging, just this morning I watched a video of Sen. Cruz asking questions and using posters to speak of Mr Epps. Now if you want to see hedging and ducking questions speak to the FBI about Mr Epps. They can tell you but then they'd have to kill you.

 

Please provide the evidence or references you rely on to state that the "subject" (I presume you mean Epps) was "trying to".."gin up"..."a marching into the capital" ..."at several different times".

Your script suggests you are trying to claim Epp's actions triggered others to march and commit violence they would not otherwise have engage in. You are suggesting had Epps not done whatever you claim he did, these same people would not have marched to the capital or engage din violence. So complete the allegation. Explain what evidence shows this that you claim exists.

At this point you are expressing a political partisan script that seeks to absolve rioters of personal responsibility for their actions claiming Epps actions is what made them do what they did, not their own individual decisions. So explain it. On the one hand you argue Trump's comments did not trigger them so why is it Trump's words did not trigger but Epp's words did. What's the difference? How do you leap from arguing Trump's words did not trigger violence, only Epp's did because that is the pith and substance of your argument to absolve Trump and the capital hill rioters...so please explain it.

What magic did Epp's use? I note you couched your words about Epp which said "trying to". "Trying to" as you are aware is a couched reference. Oh I get it. You try leave youself a backdoor to wiggle out saying you never said what Epps did actually worked but possibly worked, but its a little late for that kind of vasoline, suck and blow type reference.

Either Epps is responsible or he is not. You can pretend you are only saying its "possible" he did but its not going to weasel you out of the script you advance or any other Trumpeter.

You Trumpets started a threads to transfer culpability for the capital hill riot to the FBI from Trump and capital hill rioters. no different than you will blame anyone and everyone but Trump and his supporters for the anger and violence they display. Its everyone else's fault.

Its time for Trump supporters to grow some testacles and man up fr their violent and illegal behaviour and continuous denials and fabricated persecution complex conspiracies.

I am calling you and Trump supporters trying to blame Epp out as parroting yet another one of Trump's repetitive, tiresome exercises of rhetoric right out of the playbook of Hitler:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/hide-and-seek/201312/the-psychology-scapegoating

 

Hey Now, Trumpers need some place, even an 'I wish' and mythical one, to hide in.

 

Yes it has. I find your responses lacking in any credibility and I have explained why. Try be a straight shooter for once. You know how we Canadians are. Just spit it out man. I hate playing hockey with a guy that figure skates and won't check and pass and tries to use his stick and elbow. Come on man give it a good clean hard hit. If my head is down I had it coming Lil Mike. Listen I am debating. I am challebnging your couched words, not you as a person or your beliefs just the way you say them and some of their implications. I hit hard but its not personal. I respect you although it does not sound that way. I respect anyone's right to have their beliefs until they cross over the line and show disrespect for what I think are the laws we all have to play by. That is it Lil Mike. You have been cordial in your responses which is respected as well. I apopreciate the thick skin man.

 

Hmmm, it doesn't look like it's coming unraveled.

Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
Eight Others Facing Charges in Two Related Cases

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment yesterday, which was unsealed today, charging 11 defendants with seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.

According to court documents, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, 56, of Granbury, Texas, who is the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers; and Edward Vallejo, 63, of Phoenix, Arizona, are being charged for the first time in connection with events leading up to and including Jan. 6. Rhodes was arrested this morning in Little Elm, Texas, and Vallejo was arrested this morning in Phoenix.

In addition to Rhodes and Vallejo, those named in the indictment include nine previously charged defendants: Thomas Caldwell, 67, of Berryville, Virginia; Joseph Hackett, 51, of Sarasota, Florida; Kenneth Harrelson, 41, of Titusville, Florida; Joshua James, 34, of Arab, Alabama; Kelly Meggs, 52, of Dunnellon, Florida; Roberto Minuta, 37, of Prosper, Texas; David Moerschel, 44, of Punta Gorda, Florida; Brian Ulrich, 44, of Guyton, Georgia and Jessica Watkins, 39, of Woodstock, Ohio. In addition to the earlier charges filed against them, they now face additional counts for seditious conspiracy and other offenses.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lead...dicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and

 

To give people an idea of how absurd and simplistic your comment is and how complex the concept of entrapment is I have provided specific reference to relevant law on entrapment cases with federal government agents and bolded in black why your comments are not just inaccurate but absurd.

In law to prove entrapment you must show the person you induced into committing a crime had no disposition to to commit a criminal act. That means you have to show BUT FOR what the agent did, the person who then committed the crime would not have done it.

So such charges are anything but the simplistic formula presented above but again show how Trumpets engage in simplistic all or nothingh partisan posturing and in this case we have someone posing as a Judge. Lol.

source:https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements

"Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (198. Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").

Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550."

 

Listen Lee Leftist. All of the above is wrong and will be unraveled when Epps is shown to have caused it all on behalf of the FBI. You just wait. Putin is sending evidence as we speak about Epps.


Regards

Buffalo Head Bill (Boris)

 

It's a dead end.