Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54

Thread: far right rushes to embrace Tucker Carlson’s FBI-Capitol riot conspiracy theory

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    138,579
    Thanks
    42,401
    Thanked 23,294 Times in 18,091 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 18,922 Times in 17,532 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I don't have to. I haven't made a claim what he said is true. I've only asked guno to prove what Carlson said is false as he, guno, has made that claim. Feel free to help guno on that. But until he, or you, offer proof of your position, I have no need or grounds to submit a rebuttal.
    You can’t because no proof of it’s reality was never given


    Just because you believe con men who hate American democracy is no reason for anyone to prove its not real


    Prove trump doesn’t bleach his hair with his own piss because he likes the smell

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    138,579
    Thanks
    42,401
    Thanked 23,294 Times in 18,091 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 18,922 Times in 17,532 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    138,579
    Thanks
    42,401
    Thanked 23,294 Times in 18,091 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 18,922 Times in 17,532 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Let’s discuss these claims.

    Conspiracy?

    The Carlson/Beattie claim that government agents are unindicted co-conspirators makes very little logical sense as a matter of law. It is well-settled law — at least in the Eleventh Circuit — that “government agents and informers cannot be conspirators.” And other legal experts agree. So, when Beattie and Carlson suggest that FBI agents might be unindicted co-conspirators involved in the Capitol breach, they are suggesting something that is literally not even a thing. It’s like a liquid solid, or a working flux capacitor, or an underground sky, or a Declaration of Independence from 1775 — a figment of the imagination.


    However, “a defendant may be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown or who have not been tried and acquitted, if the indictment asserts that such other persons exist, and the evidence supports their existence and the existence of a conspiracy.” So, it is possible for a Jan. 6th defendant to be charged for conspiring with someone who the government cannot identify.

    Standard Practice — Who Is Who?

    It is not common for federal court documents to refer to undercover agents or criminal informants merely as “persons.” Under common DOJ parlance, Informants are referred to as “Confidential Human Sources” (“CHS”), and agents are referred to as “Undercover Employees” (“UCE“), as the Revolver story itself points out.

    Additionally, the Justice Department’s manual for U.S. Attorneys says “prosecutors generally should not identify unindicted co-conspirators in conspiracy indictments.” The manual, citing case law, suggests only “generic reference” to such individuals.

    The 1975 case upon which the Justice Manual’s prohibition is based warns of “harm to the citizen who is accused but not indicted.” It suggests “private injury” may “stigmatiz[e] private citizens as criminals while not naming them as defendants or affording [them] access to any forum for vindication.”

    “[W]e know of no reason why, if the indictment wishes to center upon a specific person but not name him as defendant, he cannot be described as ‘John Doe,'” the court said. “An unindicted conspirator anonymously designated as an ‘other person’ or as ‘John Doe’ may be unmasked in a bill of particulars or at trial.”


    The procedure followed generally by the Capitol siege cases follows these patterns and practices.

    The Identities

    The identity of at least one of the “persons” referenced in Capitol siege cases is known. For instance, “Person One” is Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, the Washington Post has reported.

    “The Oath Keepers are led by Person One,” federal court documents also explain.

    According to those documents:

    On January 4, 2021, Person One posted an article to the Oath Keepers website encouraging Oath Keeper members and affiliates to go to Washington, D.C., for the events of January 5-6, 2021, stating: “It is CRITICAL that all patriots who can be in DC get to DC to stand tall in support of President Trump’s fight to defeat the enemies foreign and domestic who are attempting a coup, through the massive vote fraud and related attacks on our Republic. We Oath Keepers are both honor-bound and eager to be there in strength to do our part.”
    Rhodes has military experience and is a graduate of Yale Law School, the Southern Poverty Law Center says. BuzzFeed reported that he stayed outside the Capitol on Jan. 6th. The Montana Supreme Court disbarred Rhodes in 2015. He has not been charged with a crime in connection with the Capitol siege.


    Indeed, links between the various Jan. 6th defendants, the military, and the government have been long acknowledged. Thomas Caldwell, a named member of the alleged Oath Keepers conspiracy, is a retired lieutenant in the military who later worked for the FBI, court documents have revealed. The entire mission of the Oath Keepers, after all, is to recruit former police, military, and first responders into the organization’s ranks. Finding individuals with FBI connections within the group’s roster should not be a surprise.

    But even if active, loyal FBI agents infiltrated the group, the person at the top, who is not by any account an FBI employee, was alleged to have been calling the shots.

    And federal prosecutors remain in the process of filing charges and bringing superseding indictments. There has been a clear pattern of targeting, then eventually identifying and naming individuals for prosecution in the Jan. 6th Capitol breach cases

    It’s Likely Not Entrapment

    While we await the identities of the various “persons” referenced by Carlson and the Revolver, it’s important to acknowledge that the underlying law of entrapment does not suggest the type of legal bombshell contemplated by Beattie or Carlson.

    And that’s important. Even if Beattie and Carlson are completely correct — and that’s unlikely — it likely won’t matter much legally.

    The Revolver story started to insinuate an entrapment defense for those charged:

    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. This would be far worse than the already bad situation of the government knowing about the possibility of violence and doing nothing. Instead, this would imply that elements of the federal government were active instigators in the most egregious and spectacular aspects of 1/6, amounting to a monumental entrapment scheme used as a pretext to imprison otherwise harmless protestors at the Capitol — and in a much larger sense used to frame the entire MAGA movement as potential domestic terrorists.[ . . . ]Indeed, if the federal government knew of a potential for violence in or around the Capitol on 1/6 and failed to call for heightened security, the agencies responsible may in fact be legally liable for the damages incurred during that day.


    The Revolver story went on to attempt to compare the acknowledged use of undercover agents in cases involving a plot to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the cases involving the Jan. 6th siege at the U.S. Capitol Complex.

    “The possibility of an FBI entrapment-type operation is especially disturbing in light of the striking parallels between the Michigan Plot and the so-called Capitol Siege of 1/6,” the Revolver story said.

    The problem is that the story logically leaps to — or suggests — the legal conclusion that the use of undercover informants is a bad thing. The Revolver cites no laws, so the piece asks its readers to agree that “a potentially extraordinary scandal” is afoot without any authoritative argument as to whether the alleged underlying conduct — even if it is true — is illegal.


    Generally speaking, entrapment defenses focus on what the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have called “predisposition” — that is, whether the defendant was “ready and willing without persuasion” to commit a crime and was “awaiting any propitious opportunity to commit the offense.” Though there is some disagreement in the case law about the precise parameters of law of entrapment, the legal test employed generally measures a defendant’s propensities and inclinations regardless of an undercover agent’s involvement. If a defendant is already on track to commit a crime and an undercover agent merely greases the rails and helps make the crime happen, entrapment does not occur, and the defendant is usually caught red-handed by a government agent witness who is more than willing to testify about the particulars. The legal theory at play here is that the defendant would have simply engaged the assistance of someone other than the undercover government agent and committed the crime anyway.

    A successful entrapment defense generally shows the defendant’s “unreadiness” to commit the crime. An “unready” defendant is one who is badgered or pushed by the government into committing an illegal act after refusing or expressing clear doubts and misgivings about so doing.

    As one U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court case explains:

    Inducement by law enforcement officials may take many forms including persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward, or pleas based on need, sympathy or friendship. A solicitation, request or approach by law enforcement officials to engage in criminal activity, standing alone, is not an inducement.

    Based on what we know right now about the Capitol siege cases, few if any unready or reluctant defendants have been identified. Most seemed ebullient about the thought of disrupting the proceedings to install Joe Biden as president.

    Then there’s another related legal doctrine called “entrapment by estoppel.” That’s when an individual asks a government official whether or not a certain activity is legal, is given bad advice, and henceforth relies on that advice to commit an illegal act — all while thinking the act was legal based on the government agent’s advice.

    An unpublished but often cited 2008 case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania explains the law:

    A defendant who raises this defense must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: “(1) a government official (2) told the defendant that certain criminal conduct was legal, (3) the defendant actually relied on the government official’s statements, (4) and the defendant’s reliance was in good faith and reasonable in light of the identity of the government official, the point of law represented, and the substance of the official’s statement.” United States v. Stewart, 185 F.3d 112, 124 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. West Indies Transp., Inc., 127 F.3d 299, 313 (3d Cir. 1997)).

    It’s unlikely that an undercover agent who infiltrated a militia group would have admitted his or her status as an active government agent for the purposes of giving advice to others in the group on the legalities of their actions. Therefore, it’s unlikely this particular type of entrapment defense would apply to the known Capitol siege cases.

    In an email to Law&Crime, the FBI said it “received the congressional letter” from Rep. Gaetz but had “no additional comment.”

    A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice did not return a phone call seeking reaction or comment.

    [Editor’s note: this piece has been updated to include citations to the Justice Manual and to add reaction from the FBI.]

    [image via Fox News Channel]

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    12,335
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 5,896 Times in 4,224 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 212 Times in 193 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    Because you defend it without proof doesn’t make it valid
    I defended nothing. I didn't defend Carlson's claims. I asked guno to prove his claims about what Carlson said. What part of that don't you understand?

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    1,130
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 345 Times in 258 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 35 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guno View Post
    Screwy Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) rose to speak on the floor of the House on Thursday, a sheaf of news articles in his hand and the spirit of a Breitbart commenter in his heart.

    There’s been so much appropriate concern about January 6,” Gohmert said. “What happened that day. Unfortunately, we don’t know all that happened that day. There are some major, major questions that need to be answered.”

    Among them? A report that had been elevated the night prior by Gohmert’s “friend,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson: that perhaps a significant part of the violence that day was spurred by FBI agents embedded in the crowd.

    “This is scary stuff,” Gohmert said of the sketchy claims made by Carlson. “This is third-world stuff. This is not only third-world stuff but this is like [Russian President Vladimir] Putin kind of activity.”

    The sketchy and quickly debunked claims made by Carlson. The Fox News host was elevating a story written for the website Revolver by a former Trump administration official (later fired for links to white nationalists) arguing that “unindicted co-conspirators” referred to in Justice Department charging documents referred to government law enforcement agents.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ocid=Peregrine
    Summed up, the-alt leftie trolls are scared shitless of Tucker Carlson.
    If my posts offend you:
    1. I'm sorry.
    2. It won't happen again.
    3. 1 & 2 are both lies.
    4. You're a pussy.

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    13,959
    Thanks
    650
    Thanked 5,146 Times in 3,567 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 1,627 Times in 1,499 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lionfish View Post
    Summed up, the-alt leftie trolls are scared shitless of Tucker Carlson.
    The reason the moderate left is spreading Carlson's message is we think it makes you look bad.

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    3,345
    Thanks
    4,282
    Thanked 991 Times in 731 Posts
    Groans
    233
    Groaned 152 Times in 144 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lionfish View Post
    Summed up, the-alt leftie trolls are scared shitless of Tucker Carlson.
    Sure we are.

    Late last week, a federal judge ruled that Tucker Carlson should not be taken seriously by anyone. That’s actually a part of the ruling by the way. Uh, and the reason by the way that this judge ruled Tucker Carlson should not be taken seriously by anyone is because lawyers for Fox news who were fighting a defamation suit against Tucker actually went into court and argued successfully. According to the judge that no reasonable person should take what Tucker Carlson says seriously.

  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    23,139
    Thanks
    1,363
    Thanked 6,054 Times in 4,953 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 251 Times in 240 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I am watching Tuckers Fri show just now, awesome again!
    "The best way to keep peace is to be ready to destroy Evil, and if you don't destroy Evil it wins."<<<<<<<<Ted Nugent Fox Nation

  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    13,959
    Thanks
    650
    Thanked 5,146 Times in 3,567 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 1,627 Times in 1,499 Posts

    Default

    There is a desperation; Republicans want to find someone else to blame for their crimes.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Walt For This Post:

    evince (06-19-2021), no worries (06-20-2021)

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    45,539
    Thanks
    2,421
    Thanked 5,357 Times in 4,248 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 310 Times in 288 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by guno View Post
    Screwy Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) rose to speak on the floor of the House on Thursday, a sheaf of news articles in his hand and the spirit of a Breitbart commenter in his heart.

    There’s been so much appropriate concern about January 6,” Gohmert said. “What happened that day. Unfortunately, we don’t know all that happened that day. There are some major, major questions that need to be answered.”

    Among them? A report that had been elevated the night prior by Gohmert’s “friend,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson: that perhaps a significant part of the violence that day was spurred by FBI agents embedded in the crowd.

    “This is scary stuff,” Gohmert said of the sketchy claims made by Carlson. “This is third-world stuff. This is not only third-world stuff but this is like [Russian President Vladimir] Putin kind of activity.”

    The sketchy and quickly debunked claims made by Carlson. The Fox News host was elevating a story written for the website Revolver by a former Trump administration official (later fired for links to white nationalists) arguing that “unindicted co-conspirators” referred to in Justice Department charging documents referred to government law enforcement agents.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ocid=Peregrine
    it's not a theory, deep state lie-bag.
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    https://drjudyamikovits.com <-- max vax truth

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    45,539
    Thanks
    2,421
    Thanked 5,357 Times in 4,248 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 310 Times in 288 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    Sure we are.

    Late last week, a federal judge ruled that Tucker Carlson should not be taken seriously by anyone. That’s actually a part of the ruling by the way. Uh, and the reason by the way that this judge ruled Tucker Carlson should not be taken seriously by anyone is because lawyers for Fox news who were fighting a defamation suit against Tucker actually went into court and argued successfully. According to the judge that no reasonable person should take what Tucker Carlson says seriously.
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    https://drjudyamikovits.com <-- max vax truth

  13. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    45,539
    Thanks
    2,421
    Thanked 5,357 Times in 4,248 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 310 Times in 288 Posts

    Default

    enriquo tario = fbi.

    this was an op. like most news events.

    deep state larpers.
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    https://drjudyamikovits.com <-- max vax truth

  14. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    45,539
    Thanks
    2,421
    Thanked 5,357 Times in 4,248 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 310 Times in 288 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    There is a desperation; Republicans want to find someone else to blame for their crimes.
    when will you embrace truth and stop being a lying fuckbag?
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    https://drjudyamikovits.com <-- max vax truth

  15. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Posts
    1,130
    Thanks
    274
    Thanked 345 Times in 258 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 35 Times in 27 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by no worries View Post
    Sure we are.

    Late last week, a federal judge ruled that Tucker Carlson should not be taken seriously by anyone. That’s actually a part of the ruling by the way. Uh, and the reason by the way that this judge ruled Tucker Carlson should not be taken seriously by anyone is because lawyers for Fox news who were fighting a defamation suit against Tucker actually went into court and argued successfully. According to the judge that no reasonable person should take what Tucker Carlson says seriously.
    I love judges' rulings. This one sounds like it had the teeth of a blowfish.

    I am soooo happy Tucker continues to trigger the alt-lefties.
    Last edited by Lionfish; 06-19-2021 at 02:07 PM.
    If my posts offend you:
    1. I'm sorry.
    2. It won't happen again.
    3. 1 & 2 are both lies.
    4. You're a pussy.

  16. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    34,607
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 14,946 Times in 10,408 Posts
    Groans
    4,204
    Groaned 3,381 Times in 3,143 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    You have any proof whatsoever he's wrong? Who "debunked" them? Certainly not CNN or MSNBC, they've been too focused on Trump to notice something like this...
    It was Fox's claim. Therefore they have to provide the proof. You really do not know how that works? I can make any claim and it is your job to prove it wrong? You have it backward..

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2021, 10:02 PM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-31-2021, 12:30 AM
  3. Proud Boys Charged With Conspiracy in Capitol Riot
    By BidenPresident in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-30-2021, 12:21 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-09-2021, 10:17 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-29-2020, 08:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •