"In short, what did the federal government know in advance about 1/6, when did they know it — and how far did any undercover operations go?"

 This is a good start.

 I have noticed the parallels to the Whitmer operation but due to the requirement that people actually read information to discuss it I didn't think it useful to bring up on this forum.

 
 As for things like this:

Fox was reportedly struggling with money and had been on the brink of homelessness after his girlfriend kicked him out of her house, before being taken in by his friend and employer, who let him stay temporarily in the basement of his vacuum store. It was there in that cramped storage space, cluttered with boxes and spare vacuum parts, where Fox was living with his two dogs and meager possessions, that he at one point held a meeting to allegedly plan out the kidnapping.

 Don't care.  Planning a kidnapping is illegal no matter your economic status or how many dogs you have to keep fed.

 Scrutinizing the level of influence Federal operatives have in domestic groups is necessary.  Trying to reduce accountability of criminal behavior is not.


 More info here:

https://static.politico.com/e5/1d/aa6277a242e0af889ec06f7e4a12/michiganaffida...

Doesn't really make you go "hmmm"

This is a conjecture piece.  

"If the narrative about 1/6 does not conform to the questions above..."

"If it turns out the federal government did in fact have undercover agents or confidential informants embedded within the so-called militia groups....."

"If it turns out that the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, or a similar agency) had undercover agents or confidential informants embedded in any of the groups involved in 1/6,..."

"It is unsettling to entertain the possibility that the federal government knew of a potential for violence on 1/6 and did nothing to stop it."

"However, the possibility that the federal government had undercover operatives or informants involved in the events of 1/6, from its planning to its execution, compels us to turn our attention to the second category of participants"

"If it turns out that an extraordinary percentage of the members of these groups involved in planning and executing the Capitol Siege were federal informants or undercover operatives, the implications would be nothing short of staggering."



I wouldn't pin much hope on this being an "inside job" or it being the FBI trying to "take down trump".


This is a perfect example of Occam's razor.  The simplest explanation is usually the best one:

Feeble minded trump supporters thought they had the right to storm the Capitol building and try to overthrow the electoral vote count.  Some of them went there to inflict harm on democrats.  Others were just plain caught up in the action.  They were all brainwashed by trump into thinking that the election was somehow stolen - even though there is zero proof to this day.  It's easy to sway those with weak minds who want to live in their own bubble.

But all of them were guilty.

Let’s keep focus on the most dangerous threat the the Republic since the Civil War.

Don’t you think the precise role played by federal agents and informants should be available for review?

The video of the infamous horn hat guy and one other guy sitting down in the Senate chambers does not exactly strike fear in the heart of The Republic. Yet, at least one of these guys is held without bail because he’s such a threat. The guy sitting at Pelosi’s desk is a bigger threat than OsamaBinLaden was? Does anyone believe that?

Here’s a question; which is more believable?

One: Influential members of 2 or 3 conservative groups planned a poorly thought out armed insurrection on the US Government that had zero chance of accomplishing anything. They recruited enough people to attend the Trump speech to entice hundreds of unsuspecting fellow speech attendees to leave Trump’s speech and try to take over the government. Once inside with little police presence, they took selfies and souvenirs.

Two: Tensions were running high in thousands of attendees to Trump’s speech and since they basically worship this guy, they spontaneously marched to the Capitol in protest and got carried away. Once inside, with little police presence, they took selfies and souvenirs.

Three: Influential politicians and senior agents in the FBI played some serious 3-D Chess and thought up a plot to use embedded agents in right wing groups to riot at Trump’s Jan 6 speech as a way to totally discredit Trump going forward but the plan got out-of-control and went to far by planning a March on the Capitol. Once there, embedded agents took things too far and broke in. Once inside, with little police presence and realizing their mistakes, the agents left, but  the others took selfies and souvenirs.

Two most likely. One would be close second. Third would be the most serious threat to The Republic since The Civil War.

Yes but not public review.  No part of investigations that could impede current operations should be made public.


Really? You trust the FBI and current Washington DC bureaucracy that much?

 Really? You trust the FBI and current Washington DC bureaucracy that much?


 No, but I can't imagine its a good idea to disclose undercover operatives identities while they are within criminal organizations, nor should the operational strategies be disclosed to criminal organizations.

 Crimes are committed in the military and are investigated but they do not need to provide "public" review of all aspects, like SF Operator's names, theatre of duty, tactics, contacts and support mechanisms to solve said criminal activity.

 Given the state of garbage information transferred as fact across the current US civilian population I for one don't think many would even read the entirety of any FBI report and create an accurate assessment.  

 Lastly how will the public enforce the wrongdoings if a conclusion could even be made?  Another protest?  Public executions?  Peaceful transfer of Presidential power?

Eegore wrote on 06/17/21 at 07:55:32:


Same logic if US did in fact fund research that lead to Covid? To risky to other legitimate research operations to reveal extent of biological research? And with whom?

"Same logic if US did in fact fund research that lead to Covid? To risky to other legitimate research operations to reveal extent of biological research? And with whom?"


 I don't think so.  You are comparing legitimate, as in legal operations to criminal, or illegal ones.  If somehow the security of US covert operatives is in danger by further acknowledging that the US funded research on SARS strains then yes I think publicizing the financial research allocations would be the wrong thing to do.

 If undercover researchers will be killed by criminal laboratories because the public needs to see where those undercover researchers are and what they are researching then yeah I would say it's an equal risk.