J6: An insurrection or a fedsurrection?

[Deluge]

23 minutes ago, User said:

1. That doesn't show he worked for the FBI, 

2. So, you have no evidence to back up your assertion. 

1. It doesn't matter. 60 minutes reports that he was a former Oath Keeper and FBI informant. The point is, the dude is not a true patriot and he incited protestors, most likely under the direction of the FBI. 

2. I told you earlier, irrefutable evidence is not available, but when you factor in the totality of what's been going on, then the picture makes sense. 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Deluge

[West]

42 minutes ago, User said:

That doesn't show he worked for the FBI, it is a baseless assertion that links to some rumbl video that again, doesn't have any evidence he worked for the FBI. 

Amazing how these conspiracy theories can never be disproven or proven. 

There is no research on Conservapedia to trust or not to trust... there is nothing there at all. 

So, you have no evidence to back up your assertion. 

 

This thread was titled with "fedsurrection"

You don't get the benefit of just making a mistake now, when your motives were pretty clear from the start. 

Speaking of that... didn't I ask you to specifically say then, that you do or do not agree that it was a "fedsurrection?"

And, what is your point?

Who was entrapped here? What is your evidence here for any entrapment?

 

 

Misleading. As I've already pointed out, it's a contrast between the two sides in the public discourse on the matter. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, West said:

Misleading. As I've already pointed out, it's a contrast between the two sides in the public discourse on the matter. 

I keep asking you for an explicit explanation, you keep refusing. 

Once again, will you say then that you agree, there was no "fedsurrection" then?

31 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It doesn't matter.

Well, you brought him up. You made the baseless assertions. If you are now saying none of what you were asserting matters, OK. 

31 minutes ago, Deluge said:

The point is, the dude is not a true patriot and he incited protestors, most likely under the direction of the FBI. 

The point is, you have no evidence to assert he did anything under the direction of the FBI. It is a baseless assertion. 

32 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I told you earlier, irrefutable evidence is not available, but when you factor in the totality of what's been going on, then the picture makes sense. 

You have nothing. 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Actually...those CHS people were paid for their services. 

That makes them agents.

Don't be ridiculous. Paying someone for information doesn't come close to making ANYONE an agent of the FBI.

You do know that agents carry guns and have badges, don't you? CHS do NOT. LMAO

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Plausible deniability...it's a scruge and we cannot allow this thin veil to supersede common sense and truth.

You should try elite sense, cause common sense has FAILED YOU.

[West]

8 minutes ago, User said:

I keep asking you for an explicit explanation, you keep refusing. 

Once again, will you say then that you agree, there was no "fedsurrection" then?

Well, you brought him up. You made the baseless assertions. If you are now saying none of what you were asserting matters, OK. 

The point is, you have no evidence to assert he did anything under the direction of the FBI. It is a baseless assertion. 

You have nothing. 

I don't understand your question. 

Are you suggesting that many, especially in conservative media, have not called this a "fedsurrection"?

I've already outlined what I find sketchy about utilizing third party paid informants to skirt around constitutional rights. I haven't seen you debate the appropriateness of this method. Rather get stuck on words (which I've already corrected for the purpose of moving along the conversation).. this is basically the "wiretapping" conversation from a year ago and is a red herring

Edited December 13, 2024 by West

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

User...you're engaged in semantics here. The raw facts are, any person acting under the direction of an entity, is acting as an "agent" for said entity. That these CHS people were also paid for their agency, only solidifies the facts.

Then...some of them went into the Capital with the rioters, yet although the FBI knew perfectly well who they were, no charges were brought. Gee...imagine that eh?

The FBI and other agencies use this sort of veil/tactic all the time. It gives them cover to do their dirty work. Its time for such dirty work to cease and desist. Wouldn't you say?

You're FAILING at semantics here. Agent of the FBI is NOT the generic meaning of the word "agent." Duh

[Deluge]

21 minutes ago, User said:

Well, you brought him up. You made the baseless assertions. If you are now saying none of what you were asserting matters, OK. 

The point is, you have no evidence to assert he did anything under the direction of the FBI. It is a baseless assertion. 

You have nothing. 

And he's worth bringing up. The dude is all over the place, which means he's probably nuts. BBC reports at least 4 FBI informants entered the building, and Epps was probably one of them.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn850jj44mjo 

The real point is, the FBI had a hand in January 6th, and escaped TDS patients like you are rushing to deny it. 

I have something. I have more than something. I have a piece of shit President and his thugs trying to destroy the incoming President. 

Now, calmly go f*ck yourself.  

 

[impartialobserver]

15 hours ago, Nationalist said:

The claim is the FBI had no undercover agents in the crowd, yet had Confidential Human Sources and agents there...a few of which broke the same laws as the rioters and have never been charged.

Hair splitting and of course...a cover-up.

A lot of unanswered questions and unknowns. You act as if you have 100% of the information. I know that you are not an FBI agent nor do you have any access to the conversations that were had before this. You are reading tea leaves and pretending to be an expert. 

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, User said:

No, its not semantics at all. There is a very specific meaning for what an FBI Agent is, which is exactly why you guys are playing fast and loose with the term. 

Yeah, no charges have been brought against a ton of people who were there as well. 

The DOJ has not targetted every single person that was merely wandering around in unauthorized areas either. 

So... what is your point?

Be specific... what dirty work? What was the veil/tactic here?

Where did this report support any of what you claim? What other evidence do you have?

 

This is a question. The report says they were not. 

So, what evidence do you have for this?

OK, so you agree then, there is no "fedsurrection?"

What I don't understand is, why you would go to such lengths and such a stretch, to protect the FBI?

I mean, you must realize they have, many times now, completely abused their power. Don't you?

[User]

41 minutes ago, West said:

I don't understand your question. 

Are you suggesting that many, especially in conservative media, have not called this a "fedsurrection"?

My question is directed to you. Do YOU think there was a "fedsurrection?" Do YOU think this should be called a "fedsurrection?"

42 minutes ago, West said:

I've already outlined what I find sketchy about utilizing third party paid informants to skirt around constitutional rights.

How was that done here?

42 minutes ago, West said:

I haven't seen you debate the appropriateness of this method.

You have given zero specifics to debate. 

 

[User]

23 minutes ago, Deluge said:

And he's worth bringing up. The dude is all over the place, which means he's probably nuts. BBC reports at least 4 FBI informants entered the building, and Epps was probably one of them.

You first claimed he was working for the FBI. Now you claim he probably was. 

Again, you have zero evidence for this. It is a baseless assertion. You might as well claim he was secretly working for Big Foot or Aliens. 

24 minutes ago, Deluge said:

The real point is, the FBI had a hand in January 6th, and escaped TDS patients like you are rushing to deny it. 

Exactly what hand are you claiming they had? What is your evidence?

You have offered nothing to deny. 

25 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Now, calmly go f*ck yourself

You can't defend your garbage posts, so this is all you got in the end. 

[User]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What I don't understand is, why you would go to such lengths and such a stretch, to protect the FBI?

The great lengths I am going to here has been little more than pointing out you folks don't have any evidence to back up your garbage assertions. 

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I mean, you must realize they have, many times now, completely abused their power. Don't you?

How did they abuse their power in regards to what this thread is about?

 

[West]

17 minutes ago, User said:

My question is directed to you. Do YOU think there was a "fedsurrection?" Do YOU think this should be called a "fedsurrection?"

How was that done here?

You have given zero specifics to debate. 

 

RE The FedsurrectionI

Listening to commentary, I believe it's worth looking into exactly what role the feds of all agencies played in J6. 

The paid informants broke federal law. They don't work directly with the FBI but still recieve funding from them. It's basically the same model of the government hiring a contractor to fix a road. Government contractors shouldn't be breaking federal laws

There's no transparency therefore people fill in the gaps. Usually where there's smoke there's fire. 

Edited December 13, 2024 by West

[impartialobserver]

6 minutes ago, User said:

The great lengths I am going to here has been little more than pointing out you folks don't have any evidence to back up your garbage assertions. 

That is my point as well. I have no allegiance to the FBI, Democrats, etc. I simply have no patience for those who get sanctimonious and self-righteous and then have little direct, incontrovertible evidence to back it up. In short, they expect someone to believe them because they are passionate and can fill in the blanks. 

[User]

Just now, West said:

RE The FedsurrectionI

Listening to commentary, I believe it's worth looking into exactly what role the feds of all agencies played in J6. 

There's no transparency therefore people fill in the gaps. Usually where there's smoke there's fire. 

Why won't you answer my questions?

 

[West]

4 minutes ago, User said:

Why won't you answer my questions?

 

Oh shut up. Your question is loaded and retarded. That's why

Edited December 13, 2024 by West

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, West said:

Oh shut up. Your question is loaded and retarded. That's why

Hmmm.. such an intelligent response. If you had the answer, you would simply say it. Instead of saying that you do not know.. you have to resort to this ^^^^

[User]

5 minutes ago, West said:

Oh shut up. Your question is loaded and retarded. That's why

What makes it a loaded question? What makes it retarded?

YOU created this thread with that in the title.

 

[Deluge]

28 minutes ago, User said:

You first claimed he was working for the FBI. Now you claim he probably was. 

Again, you have zero evidence for this. It is a baseless assertion. You might as well claim he was secretly working for Big Foot or Aliens. 

Exactly what hand are you claiming they had? What is your evidence?

You have offered nothing to deny. 

You can't defend your garbage posts, so this is all you got in the end. 

You've already been given the sources; now it's time to pull your head out of the left's ass and do the math:

Globalist a$$holes (including the democrat party) hates Donald Trump.

+

In order to derail Donald Trump and destroy other political enemies, globalist a$$holes everywhere (including the democrat party) will weaponize the legal system, weaponize the DOJ, and weaponize the FBI. 

= FBI entrapment on January 6, assassination attempts, and endless legal attacks during election season. 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Deluge

[User]

4 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You've already been given the sources; now it's time to pull your head out of the left's ass and do the math:

Your sources were nothing more than another website making the same baseless assertion. 

The issue isn't that my head is up anywhere. It is your inability to back up any of your assertions. 

 

[West]

10 minutes ago, User said:

What makes it a loaded question? What makes it retarded?

YOU created this thread with that in the title.

 

You are saying that I claimed it was a fedsurrection. In the English written language, (?) Signals a question. 

Do you understand what a (?) Is? 

[User]

Just now, West said:

You are saying that I claimed it was a fedsurrection. In the English written language, (?) Signals a question. 

Do you understand what a (?) Is? 

These are not loaded questions or claims, they are just questions:

Do YOU think there was a "fedsurrection?"

Do YOU think this should be called a "fedsurrection?"

[Deluge]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Your sources were nothing more than another website making the same baseless assertion. 

The issue isn't that my head is up anywhere. It is your inability to back up any of your assertions. 

This is a meeting of the minds, Abuser, not a court room.

I gave you the truth. It's the only thing available when globalist a$$holes control the mainstream narrative and the "evidence".  

Edited December 13, 2024 by Deluge

[impartialobserver]

What would satisfy me is explicit written documentation or video that lays out the who (with actual names), what (exact plan with time and place) and where. No guessing or filling in of the blanks. Its possible that the FBI is not telling you every single detail  and not because they are conspiring. Law enforcement regularly does not tell the public every single detail of a case. 

[West]

3 minutes ago, User said:

These are not loaded questions or claims, they are just questions:

Do YOU think there was a "fedsurrection?"

Do YOU think this should be called a "fedsurrection?"

I've already told you what I think. 

What's retarded is YOU getting hung up on whether or not somebody is using the lingo that you want them to use.