Did undercover federal agents help organize Jan. 6 Capitol riot?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (72 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    We know President Donald Trump had nothing to do with the breach of the capital on January 6, 2021.  It is now possible it was planned by federal agents.  This whole thing stinks.

    "Some of those key individuals who planned the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 likely were federal agents, or informers, according to a new report that documents multiple "unindicted co-conspirators" who are being cited in federal charges against some of the defendants stemming from the violent episode.

    Yet the "unindicted co-conspirators," who allegedly committed many of the same acts as those who now are facing serious charges, are not being charged."

    https://www.wnd.com/2021/06/undercover- … itol-riot/

    1. lovetherain profile image80
      lovetherainposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      There almost always are "underlying factors" in these things. So I wouldn't be surprised.

    2. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      You guys never get enough of your improbable, back door conspiracy theories. This one was was cooked up by Tucker Carlson?

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Improbable?  Conspiracy?  No, Tucker Carlson has facts of a case and asks valid questions. 

        “according to a new report that documents multiple "unindicted co-conspirators" who are being cited in federal charges against some of the defendants stemming from the violent episode. “

        Yet the "unindicted co-conspirators," who allegedly committed many of the same acts as those who now are facing serious charges, are not being charged.

        "Why is the administration hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol? What could possibly be the reason for that? Even as they call for more openness. We need to get to the bottom of it. “

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          It just seems to me that the Right have their eyes wide shut when it dismisses the obvious. But, I guess you can follow that rabbit into the rabbit hole as you have so many others....

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I believe the left doesn't want to look at what they've done.  They are terrified for the truth to come out.  This is why there is so much effort to hide things by the Democrat government.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        LOL  You mean like Trump conspiring to overthrow the government with a handful of unarmed idiots and reinstate himself into the White House?  Conspiracies like that one?

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          The men were not totally unarmed and they were dangerous and deliberate idiots. Conservatives keep digging around for an alternate explanation for the rightwinged rabble that attacked the Capital.

          According to the nutty right wing QAnon, Trump is to be reinstated as President in August, did you hear that one?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I know.  They had bats and fire extinguishers.  Totally reasonable WMD needed to overthrow a government.

            I provided a reason the day it happened: that a year of violent riots encouraged and were the root of just another riot.  Of course, that leaves Trump out of the blame picture and that was unacceptable to left wingers that demand he caused every bad thing that ever happened so another "explanation" had to be "discovered" that applied blame to the Demon Trump.

            I suspect that if you find the right soothsayers, with the right crystal balls, you will find even more people making that prediction.  All are about as intelligent, and honest, as the idiots of QAnon.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              It is at least good to know that there remains no contention regarding QAnon and its true nature.

              When you attack the Capitol building while it is in session and threaten lives, I would be hard pressed to dismiss this all as a prank.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                When you take over city blocks and refuse to allow police, fire, etc. in (even residents without ID) I would be hard pressed to dismiss it as a prank.  When you riot every night for over 3 months I would be hard pressed to dismiss it as a prank.  When you break down fences/gates and march through private property in order to scream imprecations at a politician I would be hard pressed to dismiss it as a prank.

                There was a great deal that happened last year that cannot be dismissed as a prank.  Having said that, a large number of rioters (protestors, call them what you wish) were there only for an adrenaline rush or for fun.

                1. crankalicious profile image93
                  crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  I must admit, this is one of the few things I've read that gave me some insight into a reasonable perspective about how some people are feeling. Whether people are right or wrong about their beliefs, if they believe they are fighting for something or that their rights are being taken away, then rioting appears to be an acceptable answer. So basically, if you can convince people their rights are being denied, you can convince them to riot.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Rioting may be justified when people don't get their way...to those that do not accept the rule of law.  Or at least that rule as it applies to them; the still expect it to apply to everyone else, particularly after they get the law changed to what they want.

          2. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Guess you didn't see the Senate report on the January 6 Capital breech.

            "According to the nutty right wing QAnon, Trump is to be reinstated as President in August, did you hear that one?"

            Which is reported by nutty left wing publications to nutty left wingers who fall for such propaganda.

          3. Sharlee01 profile image84
            Sharlee01posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Do you really feel the Jan 6th protest turned riot was planned? It may have been loosely planned, but it would seem realistic if a group hoped to commit an "insurrection" they would have showed up armed... It is very plausible that anyone could have shown up with a gun. Not anyone pulled out a gun but one policeman, and he shot a protester. Which I must mention --- could you imagine if a policemen shot and killed a protester at last summer riots?

            My common sense tells me this was a crowd that got out of hand due to some trouble makers in the crowd. Yes, that came to cause trouble.

            Very similar to what we saw all summer in Seattle and Portland.

            It is more concerning to me that we have citizens that would commit violence in our streets, and at our Capitol. I don't care if they are on the right or left.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Do you need a gun for a crowd through its behavior to not be a threat for completely un prepared people inside? They vandalize and committed mayhem, who knew what was to occur next, yet  conservatives always excuse it as the act of a raucous individual or two.

              Remember the St. Louis couple who stood on their property threatening B LM. protesters on the street? I don't recall if any of the protesters were armed. But conservative oriented rags justified their response, while saying that mainstream media overreacted regarding the magnitude of January 6th?

              I complain about any shooting where the use of lethal force to subdue someone is not necessary. Can we say that the officer was not justified in his use of lethal force against any of these "patriots"? If I recall, a security officer was assaulted and killed by members of the mob.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Unprepared people?  You mean the ones surrounded by police/security to the point that they turned down additional troops?

                You may not feel that brandishing a weapon in response to violence and destruction of private property is justified, but if so you and I have very, very different concepts of self protection.

                No, you complain about every shooting of a black man by a white cop.  Any necessity of the force used is ignored; you complain before you could possibly know how much force was reasonable.

                But the capital police failed only in not using more lethal force than they did.  So did the ones in Portland, Seattle and all the other riots where massive property damage happened.

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Obviously those unprepared people in the Capitol were not prepared for the scope and threat of violence threatened by the mob.

                  None of the BLM marchers were armed and inspite of the fact that they may have entered a gated community uninvited as they were there to protest the activities of the Mayor, it does not give Bonnie and Clyde the option to pull guns on the crowd without direct provocation.

                  I complain about people like you that are quick to excuse any of these shootings, always giving the cops the benefit of the doubt when evidence suggests that such a benefit is unwarranted. Quid pro quo?

                  I do agree with you, however, that more aggressive actions were needed to control the January 6th mob, even if it meant another fatility or two.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    That's not true; they were informed well before the riot that more security was needed.  They were obviously physically unprepared, but they knew and should have been ready.

                    The law disagrees with you; it is not a crime to have a weapon in the face of a destructive mob of rioters (and yes, they were "rioters" the moment they broke down the gate to the community and entered private property).  Or even marched, without a permit, as a mob TO the gate if you want to stretch it only a little.

                    Nor is it true that I'm quick to make excuses for police shootings; rather my mantra, over and over, has been to "wait until we have all the evidence before convicting what could be an innocent person".

                    Yes - the Jan 6 riot.  And the months long one in Portland.  And the actual "insurrection" in Seattle.  And the riots in Minneapolis.  And, and, and.  We have allowed rioting to become an everyday affair in our country and it cannot be allowed to continue.  Jan. 6 is an obvious reason for saying that.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                She had a name  Ashli Babbitt she was a 35-year-old Air Force veteran. Ms Babbitt was a veteran of the US Air Force who had served two tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

                So, "Can we say that the officer was not justified in his use of lethal force against any of these "patriots"? "

                "The Department of Justice said Wednesday that it will not pursue criminal charges against the police officer who fatally shot a woman participating in the Jan. 6 pro-Trump invasion of the U.S. Capitol.

                The DOJ’s press release said that “the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.”

                “Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter,” the press release said.    Source  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/officer … -says.html

                The officer was not charged...

                1. crankalicious profile image93
                  crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Ms. Babbitt got indoctrinated into a cult. Although the person most directly responsible for her death was whoever fired the gun. The person next most responsible for her death is Donald Trump. Trump is something akin to David Koresh or Jim Jones. He evangelizes his unique brand of lies and people will do anything in defense of those lies. Even die. To many, Ms. Babbitt is a martyr.

                  Despite everything, Trump continues to promote those lies and encourage more violence. He call to be reinstated in August is the promotion of a coup.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image84
                    Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    She has a name, just as George Floyd has a name. Both were killed by a police officer.

                    The DOJ’s press release said that “the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer DID NOT REASONABLY BELIEVE  that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.”

                    No threat at all, but she was shot, she had no criminal record, she was not fighting with the police, she was not high on drugs...

                    She was protesting and was climbing through a window. If she was Black we would have a problem would we not?   Her life mattered. She made a mistake by joining in a protest... No more no less.

    3. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I thought it was all Antifa in MAGA hats conducting a trial by fire. After all, MAGA patriots wouldn't scream "kill Mike Pence".

  2. emge profile image80
    emgeposted 14 months ago

    Mike, my take on this is that Donald Trump of course had nothing to do with it but it was a spontaneous reaction by the mass of people who felt that Trump had been cheated by fraud and forgery from his victory. Unfortunately, the clock cannot be put back and so there is no choice but to lump all that has happened. I don't think any federal agents were involved in it as it was something spontaneous and an expression of support for Trump.

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      But, this was unprecedented. Have we not had close elections before without riff raff storming the Capitol building defasing with every sort of vandalism and defouling?

      This is what support for Trump means?

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        The January 6 breech of the US Capital building was planned long in advance of the election.  The capital police knew about it as well as intelligence agencies.  If you don't believe me, here is a link to the senate report and you can read it for yourself.

        https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/politics … index.html

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Did you see where an Oregon legislator has been removed by the rest of the congress because he let rioters into a closed session of congress there?  We may not have had violence in DC before, but the rest of the country is no stranger to it.

    2. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Emge,

      According to a Senate report, the breech of the Capital building on January 6 was planned well in advance.  It was known about by the Capital police and other intelligence agencies.  Here is a link to the report if you would like to read it.

      https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/politics … index.html

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
      Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      No, it wasn't and unless you were there you cannot say this.
      I do know someone who traveled to the grounds because President Trump requested support for that day.
      What happened was a lack of police and the invasion of true-supporter lookalikes who led/forced the crowd of Trump supporters into the capital building.

      My friend said that afterwards, all the fakers had thrown their red MAGA masks into the trash.


      If you look at any video taken by eye witnesses you will see who the bad guys were. It was so clear to me. And then my friend verified what I had seen in the videos. He was there.

      1. crankalicious profile image93
        crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, this is what happened in Cloud Cuckoo Land. It was all Antifa. Trump had nothing to do with it.

  3. Rupert Taylor profile image93
    Rupert Taylorposted 14 months ago

    I'm sorry, you are completely wrong about this. The whole January 6 debacle was organized by a group of sentient cockroaches operating out of the basement of a Chick-fil-A outlet on Mars, where they also operate rutabaga farms.

  4. Live to Learn profile image74
    Live to Learnposted 14 months ago

    I bet the democrats are cringing at the fact that they wanted a congressional investigation. If true, there’s going to be egg on a whole lot of faces.

  5. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 13 months ago

    "Confirmed: Disguised Leftists Infiltrated Trump Crowd on Jan. 6, Said They Told FBI How to Infiltrate MAGA"

    Recently released videos prove what conservatives have been saying for months now: Trump supporters were not the only ones at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

    Two leftists infiltrated the Jan. 6 mob that stormed the Capitol and later said they told the FBI how to “infiltrate Trump rallies.”

    The two men are Walter Masterson and Peter Scattini and a quick look skim through their respective Twitter feeds shows that they are, indeed, leftists.

    https://www.westernjournal.com/confirme … mVClWsjEkg

    1. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      So two leftists caused the whole insurrection? Your insistence on finding others to blame for the attempted overthrow of our government is both sad and hilarious all at the same time.

      Either the protestors were violent insurrectionists or the biggest bunch of gullible idiots to ever walk the planet, at least according to your astute analysis.

      One of the reasons we know you're wrong is President Trump's continued talk of overthrowing the government. Unless, perhaps, Trump is a closet leftist too.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        As the effort to overthrow the strongest military complex the world has ever seen was armed with a few baseball bats, pepper spray, a police shield and a flagpole I'd have to say they were "the biggest bunch of gullible idiots to ever walk the planet".  (Sorry, I forgot they also had a fire extinguisher.)

        IF the majority had that as a reason to be there and not just another lark like we saw all year long.

        While it may be useful to exaggerate a riot into a full blown "insurrection" and attempt to overthrow the US government, the facts simply do not support such a stance.  Not unless that they were those "gullible idiots" mentioned, anyway.

        1. crankalicious profile image93
          crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          The intent of the protestors was to confront and kill government officials and "hang Mike Pence". While their ultimate success could certainly be questioned, if you couple it with President Trump's efforts to use the U.S. Justice Department to overturn the election, the combined effort, both promoted by President Trump, certainly looks like an attempted coup. That it did not succeed doesn't mean it wasn't a coup.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Crank, it looks like an attempted coup to those that will twist anything they see into something evil by Donald Trump

            To people that actually look at what happened, who look at our countries fascination and encouragement of violent riots, who question an unarmed attempt to overthrow the government, who look at the videos of idiots swinging from wall ornamentation or selfies of idiots with feet on Pelosi's desk...to people whose goal is to understand rather than to hang Trump it isn't an insurrection at all.  It's a bunch of idiots playing games and having fun, just as we saw for months last year.

            1. hard sun profile image80
              hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Maybe the real intent was to intimidate Mike Pence into not validating the election results. Could this be considered an attempted coup? Certainly not a classic/violent military coup as many on the left make it out to be, though perhaps you could call it a coup if you think Pence not validating the results would have been unlawful and he was indeed physically intimated into the decision?

              Coup: "a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government."

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                As the intent expressed was to "stop the steal" (or some other wording meaning the same thing) I'd have to say that the rioters, or at least those that were not there for a lark, wished to promote the rule of law that was being broken.

                That you, I and most of the country deny there was significant amounts of lawbreaking that happened at all does not change that the "coup", or "insurrection" was an attempt to enforce the laws of our country and the constitution.

                On top of that as we have repeatedly (number in the thousands) allowed and actively encouraged the type of violence the capital rioters used, in direct violation of the law, is it reasonable to assume that it is no longer considered a crime to move from a peaceful protest to destructive rioting?  That would mean that neither "coup" nor "insurrection" applies as there was no illegal violence or unlawful seizure of power from a government.

                1. crankalicious profile image93
                  crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  The thing was, the laws were enforced. All the votes were counted and recounted and recounted again. All court cases attempting to prove fraud had been resolved and ruled that no evidence of fraud existed. No evidence at all had been brought forth to establish the basis for the rally, other than President Trump insisting that there was fraud, which got his supporters riled up.

                  But as you have pointed out, the basis now for rioting doesn't appear to be respect for the rule of law, but agitation that one's own sense of right and wrong has been violated or that I just don't like the outcome of what's happened or that a politician suggests that violence is justified.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    Do you think the rioters agree with you?  That they think the courts addressed their concerns appropriately by simply throwing the cases out because they were not filed on time?  That all the witnesses were heard and their testimonies investigated?  Understanding that I have no crystal ball to read their minds, I don't believe that they DO agree.

                    But yes, we are teaching our people that rioting and violence is an acceptable method of addressing grievances, that if they don't get what they want that rioting is an acceptable method of getting it.

                2. hard sun profile image80
                  hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks. Intent is much of the law as I understand anyway. So, yeah, if there is reason to believe the people had any valid reason to think th intent was lawful (I am not sure about this), then I can agree with your assessment that coup or insurrection does not apply here.

                  "On top of that as we have repeatedly (number in the thousands) allowed and actively encouraged the type of violence the capital rioters used, in direct violation of the law, is it reasonable to assume that it is no longer considered a crime to move from a peaceful protest to destructive rioting? "
                  At this point, I guess it is reasonable to assume that it is no longer considered a crime if the powers that be agree with your cause.

                  I now read cranks answer and they look very similar. Basically, I think the entire incident should be placed into context of the current violent atmosphere, and that many participants should be given leniency do to that and due to the fact that, whether right or wrong, they were being fed the idea that the election was illegal.

                  As to the federal agent theory, I still haven't looked into that enough to see if any credibility. There sure are a lot of theories about many things these days.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    I would vehemently disagree that rioters be given leniency to do as they wish - it is that exact philosophy that gave rise to what we saw.

                    But their intent DOES, seems to me, remove the crime from the area of an insurrection or coup.  But it WAS highly illegal and rioters should always be punished.  Of course it is always preferable to prevent the rioting in the first place!

    2. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      What's obvious here is that these were right-wingers posing as left-wingers posing as right-wingers.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        No, they were left-wingers posing as right-wingers posing as left-wingers posing as right-wingers in order to confuse.

        Or possibly right-wingers posing as left-wingers posing as right-wingers posing as left-wingers posing as right-wingers

  6. hard sun profile image80
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    I don't readily laugh at every "conspiracy" as some of them, even lately, turn out to be true. I  found that Tucker Carlson can sometimes find some truth just as even Rachael Maddow can sometimes do.

    I do know that I agree that Jan 6 would not have happened without all the rioting previous in the year. More specifically, I feel like it would not have happened without the left wing encouragement of this rioting. Democrat politicians and the MSM absolutely encouraged BLM rioting, and we cannot even provide direct quotes, with context, on FB without the fact checkers providing an excuse for the instigators. These are the types of actions that had me ashamed to say I leaned toward Democrats in voting.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Well said... You need to consider the Democratic party has changed over the past actually couple of decades. It at this point is unrecognizable to me.

      1. hard sun profile image80
        hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah. It has changed a lot even since Trump was elected. The drive to be, and say, the opposite of him helped push the Dems to ridiculousness.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it did, and now we have a segment of our society pointing a finger at the right making claims we are subversive Nazis, communists. Almost can hear them screaming "get them!"

          And the funny thing is it is them that seem to be seeking a Totalitarianism or political system that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life.

          I mean one only need to look at the bills Boden s trying to push, Government control over voting laws, rich to be heavily taxed, a green deal wherein realty will cost the loss of so many jobs, dividing the country portraying black citizens as unable to even control their own lives, even when it comes to getting themselves to the polls. 

          It would seem they need a better leader than Old Joe. One must keep a sense of humor.

          "No matter how carefully a project is planned, something may still go wrong with it. The saying is adapted from a line in “To a Mouse,” by Robert Burns: “The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men".

          I think many that voted for Joe's agenda are becoming aware it failing, and so quickly.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)