The FBI role in January 6th

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (212 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 16 months ago

    There is evidence that the FBI was involved in inciting the January 6 incident.

    Watch the video below.  Ted Cruz questions Assistant FBI Director Jill Sanborn. She will neither confirm or deny that the FBI had operatives in the crowd on January 6 posing as supporters of President Donald Trump.  He points out Ray Epps.  Tucker Carlson's release of January 6 video proves Ray Epps lied to the January 6 commission. Why is Epps not in jail?

    Watch Ted Cruz

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQRetozhSY

    Here is Senator Myorkas asking FBI Director Christopher Ray if the FBI had operatives posing as supporters of Donald Trump on January 6. When he stumbles, Senator Myorkas says "The answer should be NO." Ray refuses to confirm or deny. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCIj7J5wNWc

    So, it is an established fact that Ray Epps went around the crowd and tried to get people to storm the Capital.  Tucker Carlson's video proves Epps was in front and one of the first to enter the Capital building.  Yet, he was never charged. He was on a most wanted list from te FBI and then removed for some reason.

    Shouldn't we know if the FBI was involved in instigating January 6? Isn't this more proof the FBI has been compromised by the democrat party?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      We certainly have the right to know if the FBI had agents present in that crowd, who they are, and what they were doing. I would think with the Media (Tucker)  now having the complete footage, we will be learning more about who was there, and what they were doing.

      It is very obvious there are those citizens that did not like Tucker getting his hands on the footage and what he has put out thus far. He has truely outed the Jan 6th committee for vilification of the Shaman, and their hyperbolic representation of Officer Sicknink's death. I am sure Tucker will be dropping mistruths we have been fed, for some time. 

      I think that Congress will push for a deeper investigation into the FBIs knowledge about what they knew prior to the event, and if they had agents in the crowd. This Epps character is all over even footage that we have seen. And Tucker brought him up long ago and had many questions bout why he was not charged for his part in the protest. Even showing he was the one that was instigating the crowd to enter the capitol. He was one of the first to enter...

      In my view, Tucker will have more relevant footage on our Mr. Epps, in the very near future. Epps has been a thorn in his side for some time.

      I have no doubt whatsoever, our FBI has been weaponized for over a decade now. 

      IMO,   If we don't clean out the bad ones, the agency will be nothing but a puppet to the Democratic party, just doing their bidding, as they have been for some time now.  For me, my view was solidified due to the Russiagate mess, with the FBI, and the Clinton campaign.  I keep my eyes wide open.

      So pleased you posted this topic. I think we will be hearing a lot more about Mr. Epps, not to mention video proof of what he was doing in that crowd. Facts can be hard to digest, but facts are facts, and I think the videos can clear up who was doing what at the Jan 6th protest, and who was not doing much of anything...

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        It is difficult to deny that the FBI has become a rogue agency who works for the democrat party and not the American citizen.

        It is important to know the role of the FBI in what happened on January 6.  American citizens deserve to know. The intense lies of the democrat party are coming to light.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Nah, it's not difficult at all for some.

          GA

          1. TheShadowSpecter profile image81
            TheShadowSpecterposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            That's because all these television shows like Without A Trace, Criminal Minds, Numbers and so forth deceivingly decorate the FBI as an institution of heroes.  If these FBI fans personally knew individuals who had worked for the FBI and saw everything that went on with them from within the walls of that institution, their opinion of the FBI would not be as positive.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I came to my conclusion regarding the FBI over some years. I have watched all the hearings, from James Comey to our present Head  Wray. It was not easy to realize the FBI had become somewhat corrupt at the top.  But, my head is never set in the sand, too much corruption to deny.

          I think problems arise with some not realizing what has occurred due to not being interested enough to take time and listen to actual hearings. Second-hand media news spin to reach a specific narrative.

          I appreciated your links... I pick up congressional hearings on CSpan. So much is being missed about what is going on in the Congressional hearimgs. Just not fodder for the media.

    2. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Not good enough, this all occurred while Trump was President.

      I saw the video, it is just more right wing conspiracy theory. Stolen elections, you know, all that rot....

      Definitive proof, is the only acceptable kind...

      When it comes to Republicans, regardless , in my book they have zero credibility.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        The head of the FBI and the Assistant head of the FBI refused to answer the question. As Senator Myorkas said when the head of the FBI refused to give an answer, "The Answer Should Be NO." This is some very suspicious behavior by the FBI.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          It made me very uneasy watching those hearings. The FBI could easily have answered many of the questions, but would not. It is obvious if Wray would have admitted that agents were in the crowd, the hearing would have gone into a closed session to protect why, and who may have been in the crowd.

          I am very sure the Congressional investigation may go into closed hearings, with a select few asking questions.

          Republicans launch an investigation into the Jan. 6 committee that examined the riot
          "WASHINGTON — A Republican-controlled House committee launched an inquiry Wednesday into the Democratic-controlled Jan. 6 committee, which a staff member said will review whether pertinent information about the riot was omitted from the high-profile examination of the attack on the U.S. Capitol"

          "The House Administration’s subcommittee on oversight will be combing through the massive amount of records collected by the Jan. 6 committee, which was dissolved in January, said the staffer, with the goal of analyzing how the panel conducted the investigation."
          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna74017

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            To begin with having the video about the Qanon Shaman in the Capital building not being shared with his defense attorney, destroying his civil rights needs to be examined.  If the video that was never turned over to other defense attorneys that could have changed the outcomes of their trials, all of the convictions need to be thrown out.

            1. Valeant profile image84
              Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              And yet, as I've noted earlier, the DOJ filed a motion in court to state unequivocally that the video was turned over to the lawyers.  That is just another lie told to you by Carlson that you swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

    3. abwilliams profile image64
      abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, of course we should know!
      I have brought up several times, people who were actually there...on Jan. 6, 2021. They were calling into talk radio, mentioning instigators and antagonists who just seemed to show up after Trump's speech. This is when many chose to leave, especially those with kids. Many others are heard trying to shush the agitators and calm the crowd.
      Epps name gets mentioned early on and then fizzles out when the narrative is being prepared....
      Yes , we should know everything as it truly was, rather than assist with the Democrat's and RINO 's narrative.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image90
        Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

        I have witnessed all of the same on video. And we need transparency, especially in these very trying times It's the only way we can become healed as a Nation.  However, I have tried to be optimistic, I am very much disappointed in how some won't even accept what these current Carlson videos have proved. The media and the Democratic party have been, and continue to stir up hate. All to divide, in my view.

        And is it not working to some extent? We have some very logical users right here on HP's forum, that are skeptical about what is being reported in regard to Carlson's tapes. It would seem there could be no better proof than what the eyes can see.

  2. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 16 months ago

    What to do about the FBI?

    Should the FBI be disbanded and have another law enforcement agency created or maybe two to cover the law enforcement duties of the FBI?

    It needs to be changed so that not so much law enforcement power is concentrated among so few people.

    The video at the beginning of the thread of Ted Cruz talking to the assistant head of the FBI is quite disturbing.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Mike as I said thank you for posting those links. I very much doubt if many have watched them I watched the hearing live and was very disgusted with this agents deminer, as well as felt she was clearly protecting her own ass and did not want to ever have her answers bite come back to indicate she may have lied under oath. 

      I think the FBI needs to be investigated top down... I myself feel it all comes from the top. I truely feel the majority of agents would cooperate with an investigation as we have seen over 20 FBI whistle-blowers giving information to Republican congressmen.

      I think ones the dam would break, we would see many steps up and talk. Men and women that are dedicated to this country, and their job. Not sure if you caught the hearing where an FBI former agent Nicole Parker testified in the first House ‘weaponization’ hearing? Her testimony was riveting. Media underplayed her appearance.
      https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3851 … n-hearing/

      I find Ted Cruz a truth seeker... I have always been impressed by Ted..

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Sharlee,

        I'm stunned more people aren't upset about this. I think much of it is fear. IF it is proven the FBI instigated the events of January 6, much upheaval would occur in our country. Can you imagine if it was proven FBI agents acting as supporters of Donald Trump are the ones who stormed the Capital building and put things in motion?

        I believe that democrats would continue to be in a state of denial and attack anyone who provided this proof. That person or persons would probably be arrested and THAT makes me really afraid for our country.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I think if the FBI had any hand in this Jan 6th protest(even if they had knowledge that it would occur and did nothing to stop it) it will be one of America's biggest scandals ever.

          I can imagine that some FBI agents were there to stir up trouble and do their duty to make sure Trump's political career would be done and done with on that day.

          I just hope this mess will be thoroughly investigated. I also agree many Democrats in no respect would be able to digest the FBI had a hand in the protest, even if there was very factual proof. It appears some are having a hard time even processing the Tucker tapes.

    2. TheShadowSpecter profile image81
      TheShadowSpecterposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      There are people on both sides of the aisle seeking to disband the FBI and for very good reasons.  A Professor Alex Vitale describes in an interview how the FBI has terrorized both left-wing and right-wing interest groups over the course of the past century.  Here is an article where he participates in that same interview to describe these transgressions on the part of the FBI and the desire among many to defund the FBI.>>>>>>  https://www.democracynow.org/2022/8/16/ … trump_raid

      I say that if the FBI does not get disbanded, then it should be converted into a privately-funded organization similar to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) or the Chamber of Commerce, except that it should be prohibited from receiving any kind of funding from the Federal government.  In other words, it should be converted into a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that depends entirely on voluntary contributions and gets no tax dollars.

      If there are people who still actually like the FBI so much, then let them be the ones to keep it afloat financially rather than all the taxpayers doing so.  I'm sure all those TV producers who glamorize the FBI on programs like Criminal Minds, FBI, Bones, Standoff, The Rookie: Feds and the likes could reach into their deep pockets and fund the FBI privately in that event.

      1. Valeant profile image84
        Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Considering they are the branch that investigates foreign and domestic terrorism on US soil, pretty sure most people still actually like them.  They conduct the background checks for our national security apparatus and exist to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction on our country.

        They can have my tax money, that's for sure.

        1. TheShadowSpecter profile image81
          TheShadowSpecterposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          "They can have my tax money, that's for sure."

          As the Biblical saying goes, you will be casting your pearls before swine.  The FBI is the United States' version of the Third Reich.  You only have to read about all the human rights violations that they have committed through the years.  If they were to become a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and I were to inherit $250,000 as you did, I would never waste my money on them in the form of any contribution.

          "Considering they are the branch that investigates foreign and domestic terrorism on US soil, pretty sure most people still actually like them."

          Unless you have statistical data regarding their actual approval rating to prove so, then that same assertion of yours is not cogent and is pure conjecture at best.  Also, even though it may be their duty to investigate terrorism, it doesn't mean that they are efficient or effective at it.  Their investigative techniques are noticeably primitive.

          "They conduct the background checks for our national security apparatus and exist to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction on our country."

          Other government agencies (e.g. Department of Homeland Security; National Security Agency; United States Marshals Service; Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; United States Department of Defense, etc.) pick up those same tasks and duties and do a much better job than the FBI could ever do.  The FBI spends so much time preying on their own lower-level employees and on politicians they dislike that they are constantly dumping their responsibilities on other government agencies.

          Some people actually believe that the FBI investigates alien abductions.  Well, I certainly would hope that you do not take any stock in all the nonsense that The X Files feeds it audience.

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
    Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months ago

    RMN: "The intense lies of the democrat party " You can seriously say that with a straight face? After Trump and now an unveiled FOX?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      We are discussing A senator questioning an FBI agent. Not Fox or Donald Trump. Can you not even address the links Mike posted, and what was shared? Did you take the time to watch the footage? 

      Whatever Trump or Fox news has done is not the subject. You quickly jumped off the subject.

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
        Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        That's what a discussion is. Keeps it interesting.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          True Kathleen, very true.

      2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
        Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        I challenged a comment presented as fact.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Oh -- are you saying you are challenging what Senator Cruz said or the questions he was asking? I don't understand. Maybe share what you found he was saying was not factual. He was pretty much-asking questions, that the agent felt she could not answer.

      3. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
        Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        I included the comment I was challenging.

  4. Valeant profile image84
    Valeantposted 16 months ago

    And this from the party that supposedly backs the blue.  Give me a break.  She likely could not answer because it would have put the lives of those confidential sources at risk.  And having sources among those there in no way equates to the FBI being responsible for the events of the day. 

    Going so far as to want to disband the FBI based on unconfirmed conspiracy theories is really just ridiculous.  There's being anti-government, then there's being so extreme that you want the FBI disbanded for enforcing our laws.  And claiming it's partisan because the majority of the lawlessness we are seeing is done by one of the two major political parties is classic victim mentality.

    The opening sentence that claims there is 'evidence' simply shows that many on the right do not understand what constitutes evidence.  Just like the video 'evidence' of ballots of suitcases in Georgia.  Or the video 'evidence' that two poll workers were passing a USB drive to each other, that turned out to be a piece of candy.  This is the latest fabricated 'evidence' to fit a narrative of the delusional to help them hate their own dedicated government employees.

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      In this case, the FBI had an opportunity to clarify things. They could have said "Yes" we had people there that day or "No" we did not have people there that day.  A yes or no answer would have not put anyone's life in jeopardy.

      1. Valeant profile image84
        Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        A yes is a confirmation to those groups that they have confidential informants(CI) in their midst and definitely endangers lives.  A no means the potential for perjury.  A yes in public also undermines their future ability to recruit those CI's.  That's pretty much common sense.

        It's pure stupidity by Cruz to ask, when it should be assumed that the FBI is getting information from confidential informants, especially in a public hearing.  If he wants to have a classified discussion with the FBI, so be it.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I still believe the American people have a right to know the role of the FBI in the events of January 6.  I've even read reports where the first people to break into the Capital building were FBI agents posing as supporters of Donald Trump. There is really no way to confirm this, but it is quite possible.

          There is no answer about Ray Epps who is recorded telling people to bust into the Capital building. Yet, he was never charged.  People who simply walked into the Capital building and walked around were charged.  Yet, someone captured on video trying to get people to break into the Capital is initially on the FBI most wanted list, but then is removed. People around Epps were shouting at him "Fed, Fed, Fed."

          These are facts.

          I think they refuse to answer the question about FBI assets as this could show the FBI was instrumental in breaking into the Capital building on January 6.  If that is established, it will change everything.

          1. Valeant profile image84
            Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            'Reports?'  Or someone's opinion piece?  That's not a fact, that's a theory as you note by there not being any proof to support it and you acknowledging that there was no way to confirm it and only being a possibility.  That's like the definition of a conspiracy theory.

            The answer about Ray Epps is that he never entered the Capitol, so he broke no laws.  Unless you think him as guilty as Trump for using his First Amendment rights outside the Capitol.  Just as people calling him a Fed, despite any proof of him actually being a Fed, really isn't a proof of anything but people's paranoia.

            And you can certainly have your opinions about why there was a refusal to answer the question, just as I have mine.  A refusal to answer is not proof of anything though and you've created a narrative that doesn't exist based on a non-answer.  That is really the only true fact here.

            1. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              "he never entered the Capitol, so he broke no laws"

              Oh, going around in a crowd trying to incite people to storm the capital is indeed a crime.  He is captured on video doing just such a thing.  You need to look at 18 U.S. Code § 2101.  It's against the law to promote or encourage a riot.  At the very least, he should have been arrested and not mysteriously removed from the FBI top wanted list. It is too suspicious.

              I still believe the American people should know the extent of the FBI operatives on January 6 who posed as supporters of President Trump.  It could change the entire perspective of events that day.

              1. Valeant profile image84
                Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                If that were the case, then the FBI could have charged so many others for incitement.  Name one other case where someone was charged with inciting a riot based on speech of the 1,000 people that they have charged. 

                There are those that were charged with seditious conspiracy, but it appears that there were e-mails and communications prior to the event showing organized efforts.

                Ray Epps sounds like so many others there on the day blustering about taking the Capitol.  The difference is, he did not.

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Okay, show me video of other people other than Ray Epps on January 6 telling people to storm the capital.

                  Waiting.

                  1. Valeant profile image84
                    Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, this took all of two minutes to find.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYCSjNh1FvA

          2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
            Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            Who else are you folks going to try to pin this insurrection on? Aliens?

            Seven million dollars spent on ten investigations were conducted into the 2012 Benghazi attack, six by Republican-controlled House committees. Do you know what they discovered? It was a tragedy. Nothing else.

            How many millions will be spent trying to blame January 6 on somebody - anybody - besides Trump and his extreme right followers?

        2. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          The Jan 6th incident was a historic event. We need true transparency. The FBI has been outed on many occasions at this point with what appears to be weaponization vis the White House, and perhaps the DOJ.

          Hiding pertinent information, lying to the FISA court, and much more. I find it odd that any citizens would not have noted how many times in the past 6  8 years the FBI is not in the forefront of a scandal.

          "Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application, announced John H Durham "   

          "According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C.  On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian government.  By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as “Individual #1.”

          FISA court slams FBI conduct in Carter Page surveillance warrant applications
          https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/poli … index.html
          https://www.lawfareblog.com/fbis-fisa-mess

          The FBI suppressed the Huter Biden Laptop before 2020 election.
          https://www.dailynews.com/2022/12/25/fb … en-laptop/

          https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- … linesmith,)%20application%2C%20announced%20John%20H.

          And then there was Russiagate... In my view the FBI has truely been weaponized, and most likely more than we will ever know.

          1. Valeant profile image84
            Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            The people who are stirring up hate are the one's turning January 6 into a false narrative that tries to blame the FBI.  We already have one big domestic terrorist with a huge following who programmed one of his followers to attack a Cincinnati FBI office after they did their duty and served a lawful subpoena on him.  Trying to deflect the blame away from that same person who organized the rally and turned his followers on the Capitol based on lies is no less deceitful.

            And let's go over this Russiagate term.  You use it as if it wasn't proven without a doubt that there were multiple meetings between Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik - a known Russia spy - where internal campaign strategy and polling data was passed between the two parties. 

            https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit … olume5.pdf

            1. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Do you not feel with all the problems we have witnessed over the past years that the FBI should not be investigated?  I mean are investigations not our on;y way to get a glimpse of the truth nowadays?

              I am leary of any investigations to be honest -- after watching all the problems with the Jan 6th investigation. We were not given all the information, and to me, it was simply a production for TV.

              In my view, the FBI needs to be investigated, it seems they are very much weaponized. I find this very disturbing. Just too much smoke.

              1. Valeant profile image84
                Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                I will not dismiss the case of the lawyer altering the e-mail, nor of Comey violating Bureau policy to announce an active investigation a few weeks before an election.

                Now, aside from speculation, what ties can be shown between the FBI and those in attendance on January 6?  Should not some evidence be there before jumping into an investigation?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                  Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Oh yes, there should be evidence before accusation...   That's why it should be necessary to have closed-door hearings, out of respect for the agency. This all could be cleared up quickly if Congress would handle this in the right way. However, we both know this can be strung on for a long time as a political weapon. With an election coming up... Oh my, both parties are well aware of how to drag an issue out, to use on the campaign trail.

                  The FBI at this point needs to be cleared or if problems are found revamped. IMO

                  1. Valeant profile image84
                    Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    What I see this as is the same kind of scapegoating we saw from the right-wing media that tried to put this on BLM.  We've spent so much time talking about the left's initial misrepresentations, that we could easily lump the FBI attempted scapegoating and BLM's into the the right's faulty reporting on the topic.  Both began shortly after the actual event happened.  Neither had the evidence to support it, IMO.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            That is something you will never see or get.

            Consider this, some of the highest members of the FBI were ousted by Trump, if you recall, James Comey was fired and disgraced, his actions to cover-up Clinton's indiscretions made public. Trump also helped ruin Peter Strzok if you recall that fiasco.

            Trump made a lot of enemies, within the halls of DC, within the FBI, CIA, etc.

            Do you know what a Color Revolution is?

            Color Revolutions are known as the "product of machinations by the United States and other Western powers"... in other words, efforts by shadow agencies like the CIA.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

            It does not take a stretch of the imagination to contemplate that such efforts and such agents could be against Trump and his supporters to ensure that they can be labeled, arrested, and charged with crimes, as they have been.

            Its nothing more, or less, than the efforts of those in power to ensure they remain in power and thwart the threats to themselves and their allies.

            As President Biden has stated, there is no greater threat to Democracy than Trump and his supporters, so, one should expect every means legal and illegal, moral and immoral, will be used to defeat that enemy as deemed necessary by those with the power to do so.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              OMG Ken, that makes perfect sense.  I have racked my brain, and I will admit I have recognized that this administration, and not only this administration is using tactics to divide and point hate at a group of citizens. Referring to Republicans in every negative means they can dig up. In my view, trying to promote a left group that feels they are superior and have the right to negate even facts, to keep their narratives alive and thriving.

              They clearly want to keep power, and their plans are very much obvious to anyone that will stop spinning and have a good look.

              Biden slips up with his terminology frequently, and o several occasions make outrageous statements about Republicans. He is so obviously making every effort to split this country in two.

              I really don't think at this point there is any chance of stopping what is to come. Many Americans have clearly been brainwashed into a dumbed-down state. I mean just consider what many are willing to overlook...  Spy ballons,  "no biggie" drones being downed, "no problem" a freaken proxy war with Russia. Unbelievable.

              All about looking here not there --- and it seems to be working so well.

              1. gmwilliams profile image83
                gmwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                Biden is very dividing as a "president".   He has stated this so many times.   Well, the Americans who voted for Biden are getting what THEY deserve; however, the REST of us are getting it too.  Biden is leading America to.....PERDITION then DESTRUCTION.

              2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
                Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                "He is so obviously making every effort to split this country in two."

                I'm sorry. Which president are we talking about now? The one who won the popular vote of the one the minority got elected before he tried to overturn an election?

                Yes. Once again I am inserting Trump into the discussion because people have incredibly short memories.

            2. Readmikenow profile image95
              Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Scary, but you are absolutely 100% correct on this.

              1. Valeant profile image84
                Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                I wouldn't say 100% as Comey was fired for starting the investigation of Russia into their interference efforts of the 2016 election.  Even Mueller found that move to be an example of Obstruction of Justice.

            3. Valeant profile image84
              Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              'It does not take a stretch of the imagination to contemplate that such efforts and such agents could be against Trump and his supporters to ensure that they can be labeled, arrested, and charged with crimes, as they have been.'

              And yet, that is just what it is, a stretch of the imagination by a paranoid, anti-government faction of one of the two political parties in this country.  That if they don't get their way and then commit crimes because of that petulance, that it just has to be some government conspiracy against them and not just the accountability for their own actions.

              And many Americans see Trump and his supporters as the greatest threat to democracy.  They exist in a fabricated reality where up to 70% would believe such spectacular lies as a conspiracy between Joe Biden (from his basement no less) and multiple Republican Secretaries of States, who were on record supporting Trump, to steal the 2020 election.

              And then after accepting those lies, they were brought to the Capitol, riled up, and attacked it in support of those lies.

              When their leader gets served a subpoena for crimes and endangering national security for lying about returning classified documents he stole, he programs another supporter to violently attack an FBI field office.

              That makes two domestic terror attacks, three if you count the guy who sent poorly made pipe bombs to everyone that Trump listed as his political enemies.  Four, if you want to list the two armed guys arrested on their way to attack the Philadelphia Convention Center where votes were being counted.

              At what point do Trump's supporters realize that they are in a cult whose members are willing to commit these domestic terror attacks?  It seems as if the answer is never.  And that is where so many Americans see them as the greatest danger to our country.

              1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
                Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                "That if they don't get their way and then commit crimes because of that petulance, that it just has to be some government conspiracy against them and not just the accountability for their own actions."

                Oh, Amen.

            4. TheShadowSpecter profile image81
              TheShadowSpecterposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              It wouldn't be the first time that the FBI has carried out a malicious grudge against anyone.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
    Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months ago

    It is not "murder" when a police office fires his weapon either to protect himself or to stop someone during the commission of a crime. I expect you know this as well as I do.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, I agree with that statement. The officer was totally exonerated, that is the bottom line.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Well Sharlee,

        Who exonerated the officer? The Capital Police? Other Federal Agencies? I hardly believe that is a unbiased review of this event. It is about as unbiased as the January 6 Committee.

        There are two types of law.  Judicial law which are laws passed by legislatures.  There is also case law.  Case law based on how previous cases have been decided. There is case law, courts have determined, a police officer MUST warn an unarmed person they will be shot and give them the opportunity to "retreat."

        This was not done. The federal individual simply stuck his arm around an open door and fired his weapon. VERY cowardly and very unprofessional. So, since he did not issue a warning to an unarmed person he was about to shoot and provide them with an opportunity to retreat, it could be classified as a murder.  I consider it at the very least manslaughter.

        I don't think those on the left will comprehend this legal concept. I know you probably do understand it.

        1. Valeant profile image84
          Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Did you even watch the video Sharlee posted?  The officer is seen in the doorway off to the side, and when Babbitt climbs into the doorframe, he moves towards her before shooting, not just 'sticking his arm around an open door' as you falsely claim in direct contradiction to the video evidence we can all see in this very thread.

          Next, he issued multiple verbal warnings including, 'Stay Back! Stay Back! Do Not Come in Here!

          It's amazing how many falsehoods can be posted about this incident, even tripling down on the claim that 'it could be classified as murder' which is just a complete lack of understanding about what constitutes that crime.  Talk about not comprehending the legal concepts of something, geesh.

        2. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
          Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Did those rioters look like they would retreat if warned to?

  6. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 16 months ago

    If it were me, I would have shot a few more. It might well have served as a deterrent, discouraging further entry.

    This mad dog mob that assaulted the Capitol and I as security was charged with protecting the building and the VIPs within.

    I would have had no idea what the intent of such a mob were. They were just letting off a little steam? Right......

    I know that conservatives would weigh the guard down with the medals that  they would bestow upon him had it been a mob of blacks attacking the Capitol and the security guard were white.

    1. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      He showed great restraint. They all did.

      The argument of her not being armed is stupid. They didn't know that. And, in anyway case, just the sheer number of violent people was enough of a threat.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Why this particular mob was to be handled with "kid gloves" is beyond me.

        They need to arm these security men with "tommy guns" next time.

        Missy Ann can never be considered guilty of anything....

        1. abwilliams profile image64
          abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          We need to all remember this conversation the next time a Republican becomes President, when the left hits the streets in a rage, destroying everything in their path, as they've often done! If the Police feel threatened, they just start shooting into the crowd, right, is that what has been determined here?

          1. Valeant profile image84
            Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            The left?  Pretty sure the social justice protests were not a left issue - but a racial justice issue of please do not kill people in the street before they get a trial. 

            And I'm also very sure the police were more than just 'threatened' on January 6.  If you don't agree that when the police are physically attacked in hand-to-hand combat and outnumbered, that they should be allowed whatever means to protect themselves at that point, then we will disagree.

            1. abwilliams profile image64
              abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              It is most definitely a left issue. Also, funny that you would mention "a trial".
              So now Ashli Babbitt wasn't just in the wrong place at the wrong time, she was participating in hand-to-hand combat?!

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                AB,
                I think the problem was that Ashli Babbitt was the wrong gender and race for the left to get worked up over.
                An unarmed black man with an extensive criminal history gets killed by police and they're willing to burn down entire cities.
                An unarmed white female who is an Air Force veteran is killed by police and they are now backing the police.

                What a bunch of hypocrites.

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  I also find it interesting that a police officer dies of natural causes and the left tries to make it as if the protesters were responsible.  Guess what?  During the George Floyd riots many police officers were shot and killed for real. Unlike the police who committed suicide being counted and being killed by protesters, these police officers died at the hands of protesters.

                  This took me less than 5 minutes to find police officers who WERE killed by protesters.  They didn't influence their deaths, they were murdered by them.


                  Why can’t the left admit police officer were actually shot and killed during the George Floyd riots? NO police officers were shot and killed during the Jan. 6 incident.

                  4 St. Louis officers shot, ex-captain killed during unrest
                  ST. LOUIS (AP) — Protests that began peacefully over the death of George Floyd turned violent in the St. Louis area, where four police officers were shot and wounded and a retired St. Louis police captain was killed by looters at a pawn shop, actions that the governor blamed on “criminals” and “thugs.”
                  https://apnews.com/article/83b1ecab54f0 … a218a4c994


                  Authorities identify federal officer killed in Oakland during George Floyd protest
                  The FBI’s San Francisco field office said the officer, Dave Patrick Underwood, died after someone fired at him from a vehicle.
                  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/au … t-n1220516

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of … ted_States


                    I don't know that we can compare a maraschino cherry with a watermelon? But conservatives like to equate them as if they are equal, well, they are not.

                    As for George Floyd, From May 26, 2020 through the end of June, 15-25 million in the United States alone participated in peaceful protests, 93 percent, with kudos to the international observances as well.

                    George Floyd Protests: A Timeline

                    Per New York Times:


                    At least six people have been killed in violence connected to the protests that started after Mr. Floyd died in police custody.

                    How does an average of 20 million people over a little more than a month compare with 2,000 people in a matter of hours?

                    Yes, the Sicknick affair was media misrepresentation and falsehood, evidence points that way. The M.E. said his death was due to natural causes. It just appear d a strange coincidence that it occurred at the very time of the melee.

                    I am not just against the police, but against them and any other official that abuses their authority and discretion. I guess that is just the lefty in me.

                    All the same, there ar circumstances where use of police lethal force is justified, the George Floyd case was not, but the Babbitt case was.

                    I am not going to just stand there in the face of violent, murderous mob coming for me and not shoot somebody..........

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    Here is the issue.

                    The Left is fine with destroying businesses, buildings, entire cities, killing cops.

                    But if you actually go after the source of all our problems, if you go after the real criminals and complicits that are responsible for our nations woes.... They want you dead or destroyed.

                    Funny how when governments are overthrown by a violent minority in other places, like Ukraine for instance, it's OK... Infact it's freedom at its finest and fully supported by our government.

                    But when it's the American people full of disgust and distrust of their own government, they are terrorists, evil threats to Democracy.

                  3. Valeant profile image84
                    Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    Funny how you leave out the part in Oakland that the person that shot him was part of the far-right Boogaloo Bois and not someone who was in any way part of the social justice movement.  That you claim this one died 'at the hands of protesters' is your latest false claim.

                  4. abwilliams profile image64
                    abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    YES!! The left has bended and twisted themselves into pretzels, to find someone... anyone.....{obviously they can't consider Ashli Babbitt, they have to make her into some monster} whom they can pin the murder of...on a Trump supporter!!!
                    All while completely ignoring the targeting of police officers BY THEM...the maiming and murdering of police officers BY THEM, along with the destruction and demise of private property, many Mom & Pop small businesses, city blocks of ruin...and on and on!

                2. Valeant profile image84
                  Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Actually, the problem was the black guy in the streets was already in custody and no threat when he was then murdered, this according to the verdict of this trial. 

                  A domestic terrorist who was part of a mob that injured hundreds of police was trying to advance to attack elected reps and prevent the peaceful transfer of power.  The officer in those investigations was cleared.

                  The false equivalency of those two examples where one was found guilty of murder and one was exonerated, to claim hypocrisy is the issue where Trumpers continue their denial of basic facts.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image95
                    Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    Ah, but if it had been a black man shot by the capital police, how many cities would have burned? Circumstances don't matter to the left. Only their agenda.

                    Here is a basic fact of the left's hypocrisy.

                    Why weren't cities burned down for Tony Timpa? I guess he didn't meet the left's race requirements for social justice.

                    "He died after a cop kneeled on his neck for 14 minutes. Now, his family can finally sue.
                    Tony Timpa died after a police officer kneeled on his neck for 14 minutes. A court originally denied his family the right to sue."

                    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 024452002/

                    Again, the hypocrisy of the left is overwhelming.

                3. abwilliams profile image64
                  abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  No doubt!!!

              2. Valeant profile image84
                Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                It's a humanity issue, which might explain why the right failed to get behind it.  So many showed that they could care less when black people are killed in violation of their due process rights.

                You make Ashli Babbitt out like she was just standing around and got shot.  Not true and you know it.  She made herself into a threat, a danger.  And yes, the mob that broke into the Capitol had engaged in hand-to-hand combat prior to her being shot.  Many officers had already been injured, so the mob was considered a threat by that point.  Denying that is to deny reality.

                1. Readmikenow profile image95
                  Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  "violation of their due process rights"

                  Sort of like the Qanon Shaman who had video that would have exonerated him intentionally kept from his attorneys? But, the left, as always, feels this is justified. Circumstances don't matter, only their warped agenda.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    The guy pleaded guilty to unlawfully obstructing an official proceeding, how do the video clips exonerate him? Don't the other videos of him in the chambers count?

                    GA

                2. abwilliams profile image64
                  abwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  V,  there was an open door which the majority walked through, no longer speculation, but rather, truth!
                  I have stated that Ashli was caught up in the moment. I have stated that she was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. That is not sufficient cause for a random shot from a capital police officer to take her out!

                  As for George Floyd, he was a career criminal, high as a kite, for fentanyl was in his system...an officer kneeling on his neck, didn't help, when he was resisting arrest, but it was a combination of things. The officer took things too far, no doubt, the whole situation was a series of bad decisions.....much like what happened with Ashli Babbitt!!! Yet, the left turned George Floyd into a Saint, while turning Ashli Babbitt into Bin Laden!!!

                  George Floyd isn't an innocent victim as portrayed and wasn't worthy of the sainthood bestowed upon him which has led to police officers targeted and gunned down.
                  It led to entire city blocks burning, it destroyed many Mom and Pop businesses, it destroyed historic monuments and unknown amounts of personal property and innocent people's livelihoods.

                  It is quite obvious who is responsible for the most death and mayhem, it isn't the right! It isn't Trump supporters, although, you've convinced yourself that it is.

                  1. Valeant profile image84
                    Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    AB, that door was opened by violently smashing in the windows to the Capitol, after violently overrunning the police lines outside.  So do you deny that the crowd had already used violent means against police and property to gain entry to the Capitol?

                    Wrong place, wrong time does not get to excuse the fact that she made herself into a threat by trying to lead a mob, one that had already used violence against police, towards people that the Capitol Police were sworn to, and had a legal right to, protect.

                    George Floyd is not an innocent, and neither was Ashli Babbitt.  The difference being that Floyd was no longer a threat when he was killed.  Trying to make them out to be the same is just a false equivalency.  One was ruled a third-degree murder and unintentional manslaughter by a court of law, the other was ruled justifiable use of force - that people like you and Mike refuse to accept - by multiple investigations.

                    As to quantifying the death and mayhem, again, like Mike, you are equating that issue solely to the left when what happened with George Floyd would likely be condemned by both sides of the aisle.  Unless you are saying that you are in support of police being able to kill people in handcuffs by kneeling on their necks.  Neither side supported any rioting, so not sure why you attribute that to just the left. 

                    Now January 6 was solely a right-wing cause.  70% supported the lies leading up to it and you still have a GOP House trying to whitewash, and succeeded with people like Mike, the insurrection.  And with the multiple domestic terror incidents we have seen and continue to see from Trump's base, yes, I see them as the greater threat.

          2. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

            Perhaps, under SIMILAR circumstances, I would say that what is good for the goose….

  7. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
    Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months ago

    Not to mention the fact that many were armed and said (yelled) as much.

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
    Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months ago

    Thank you, IslandBites, for your research. It is too easy to talk off the top of your head about something this important.

  9. Valeant profile image84
    Valeantposted 16 months ago

    Like I said, will never admit how wrong he was.  Cannot even understand how city ordinances work, or that the penalty for violating it was simply reduced and not eliminated.

    1. GA Anderson profile image88
      GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah, but . . . This is really one of those 'yeah but' opportunities.

      Yeah, legal opinions say violating an ordinance isn't technically a crime, but, you can get arrested and taken into custody for it, and you can get jail time for it. Sounds like a criminal punishment to me. Is this one of those times when the reality is an interpretation?

      GA

      1. Valeant profile image84
        Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Here is the claim:

        'Did you know it is no longer a crime to defecate on the streets and sidewalks of Denver (and some other cities)?  Regardless of morality, common sense tells us it is dangerous to our health...but the left says it's all right because some people need to do it.'

        The claim was made that the left changed a city ordinance to make something that was a crime into something that is not a crime.  As if it is now legal to defecate on the streets of Denver.  That is patently false.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness is the one to address your "as if ' interpretation. Factually he is right, it is no longer a crime (technically) because it never was one.

          See what I mean about 'yeah, buts'?

          GA

          1. Valeant profile image84
            Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            Actually, I think it's you here who is failing to understand what was said. 

            If he was factually right like you claim, would he not have said that is has never been a crime?  By saying that it no longer is, his claim is that it once was (not true) and that the left changed it to no longer be (also not true), which are the falsehoods at the heart of this claims.  The left never invalidated the ordinance (also making his claim that the lefts says it's alright a falsehood).

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Yep, I got your point. Just adding some pepper to the stew.

              GA ;-o

  10. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 16 months ago

    It is important to realize the FBI never admitted to having undercover people involved in the January 6 incident at the Capital.  The also NEVER DENIED it. The assistant director of the FBI was asked directly by a U.S. Senator if Ray Epps was part of the FBI. Again, the FBI neither confirmed and they also NEVER DENIED Ray Epps was part of the FBI on January 6. It is a fact that he was on the FBI's most wanted list shortly after January 6, but was mysteriously removed.  Without being arrested or even interviewed by the FBI.

    It has to make you wonder why they couldn't say NO we had no agents acting as members of President Trump's followers who broke into the Capital.  Why?

    SO, how important is it to know the role of the FBI in the events of January 6?  If it is established some time in the future that the FBI was directly involved in the events of January 6...what should happen? Would that change everyone's view of what happened on January 6?

    The FBI has never denied it.

    1. Valeant profile image84
      Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Again, if they have undercover agents there and they admit it, it puts the lives of agents at risk.  Saying nothing in an unclassified briefing is the best move.  If your only proof is a non-denial, then all you have is a conspiracy theory. 

      There is a very simple reason behind a non-denial and you just refuse to accept it.  Par for the course.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        The American people deserve to know the role of the FBI in January 6.

        The  American people deserve to know if the FBI's operatives were responsible for instigating January 6.

        The truth of their role in January 6 could change everything.

        The American people deserve the truth. The FBI works for the American people and not the democrat party.  It seems they may have forgotten this.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image73
          Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Well its not going to happen.

          There are things the CIA, FBI, etc. did against there own people going back decades now, and the truth has still not come out, and won't in our lifetimes.

          I've been part of things that were outright lied about, in the news, by the precious defendants of truth and information like CNN and the NY Times.

          That is the way of it, our government lies about things it doesn't even have to lie about, our government is a habitual liar...a pathological hypocritical one, at that.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            "I've been part of things that were outright lied about, in the news, by the precious defendants of truth and information like CNN and the NY Times."

            I can completely relate to you.

            "our government lies about things it doesn't even have to lie about, our government is a habitual liar...a pathological hypocritical one, at that"

            You are 1,000 percent correct.

            I still think we should take every opportunity to expose the truth.

        2. Valeant profile image84
          Valeantposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          If you can come up with any actual proof, since a non-denial or a removal of someone from their most wanted list who never entered the Capitol is not actual proof of anything, that undercover FBI agents instigated January 6, then maybe it'd be more than the equivalency of a guy standing in the street with an end of world sign.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            "If you can come up with any actual proof"

            This is why there needs to be an investigation into this very thing.

            I am not saying the FBI did instigate January 6.  I'm stating the obvious when I say they have behaved in some VERY suspicious way, and they need to provide answers.

            American people deserve to know the truth. The FBI needs to answer questions.

            1. abwilliams profile image64
              abwilliamsposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              This is so typical Mike, it matters not to too many of our fellow American citizens, they are content with whatever they are fed, it isn't going to get any better, I'm afraid!

              1. Valeant profile image84
                Valeantposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                So the theory is that the FBI infiltrated and convinced right-wing militias to attack the nation's Capitol in an effort to make Trump look bad?  That's the scapegoat that you guys are settling on? 

                It's as far-fetched as multiple GOP Secretaries of State conspiring with Biden, who was hiding out in his basement when he convinced them, to steal the 2020 election from Trump.

                And the right wonders why the rest of the country sees them as a danger.  It's thinking like this that their own government conspires against them and they need to attack them first.

                1. abwilliams profile image64
                  abwilliamsposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  If you can't even be bothered to at least question a little bit...how one, Joe Biden, became President, without popularity, without being liked, without campaigning, without anyone showing up for his two or three appearances {to make it look legit} even though he didn't know where he was and yet.....he garnered more votes than THE MAN/THE LEGEND, Barack Obama...then no, we'll never come close to seeing eye to eye.

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    The question has already been answered as troublesome and contentious as the Trump administration has been, you don't find it odd that many chose to vote against him for just a little relief?

                    From my standpoint Joe Biden wasn't my ideal choice, but anything was better to having Trump win a second term and it is likely that most Americans agreed with that assessment, hence President Joseph Biden.

                    Trump was distrusted and disliked more than Joe Biden was.

                    So, there is nothing to be surprised about....

                  2. Valeant profile image84
                    Valeantposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                    The flip side of that is the failure to consider the record-setting lack of popularity of the opposing candidate.  That a person who pandered to the 40% of the country that supported him and alienated everyone else pushed so many voters into the never-him camp.  That advocating against the most basic of health measures to keep people safe during a deadly pandemic exposed the incumbent as disqualifying to so many voters.

                    It would not have mattered if it was Biden or Sanders or Warren.  So many Americans saw the failures, corruption, self-dealing, and nepotism of the incumbent that it was anyone but him.

                    Like so many other issues, the right omits the most glaring of pieces of the puzzle to wonder how something very obvious could have happened.  This one was not rocket science.  But there are many here that wear the rose-colored glasses to only see that Trump advocated for the things they wanted.  For a different subset of the population, those things, combined with his many embarrassments, were disqualifying.

  11. abwilliams profile image64
    abwilliamsposted 15 months ago

    Hmmm, a D.C. which gets in the way of the people's choice of candidates/Presidents or a D.C. which honors the people's role in Government, it's a no brainer for me.

    1. Valeant profile image84
      Valeantposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Considering the role of so many in the GOP leading up to January 6, and their open rebellion against the people's choice, when they were smart enough to see the lack of fraud based on the courts and Attorney General investigations, not sure there's a partisan high ground in that stance.

      1. abwilliams profile image64
        abwilliamsposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        You've ruled out a corrupted D.C. swamp doing whatever it takes to stop anyone who gets in their way, I have not, V.

  12. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago
    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
      Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      "An attorney for Ray Epps, the Arizona man that January 6 conspiracy theorists falsely claim led an FBI plot to orchestrate the insurrection, demanded an on-air retraction Thursday from Fox News and its right-wing talk host Tucker Carlson, and claimed they made “false and defamatory statements” about him."

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
        Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        It's from FOX so maybe some of you folks will believe it.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          "An attorney for Ray Epps"

          I think this can be considered a biased source.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

          Kathleen, I have been following this story. Becoming interested in the issue after hearing Ted Cruz interrogate an FBI agent in one of the hearings. It was clear that that particular hearing left many curious about  Ray Epps. Just due to the many questions not being answered about the man, yet the agent was aware of the man. 

          Makes me wonder why the hearing did not go into a closed-door hearing, and the question was reasked.

          However, we have the new development of  Ray Epps, asking that the story be retracted, as well as an apology from Tucker Carlson. As of yet, Fox has not given a statement.

          I wonder where this will all go. Will Epps bring a lawsuit against Fox and Carlson? Will Congress ask Epps to go under oath to clarify his part on Jan 6th? I also am aware he gave testimony to the Jan 6th committee. Stating under oath  "Epps told the Jan. 6 committee that the wasn't working for the CIA or the National Security Agency or the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.

          “The only time I’ve been involved with the government was when I was a Marine in the United States Marine Corps," Epps said."

          So, I would be prone to think he would not commit perjury.

          In my view, we have not heard the end of this.

          I am displeased to see Congress ask the questions they asked the FBI about this man, and not totally pursue all the answers from the FBI. I am disappointed with Tucker Carlson spreading more or less his view, which bears little to no facts at this time.

          Ted Cruz did paint a very intriguing scenario, lots of smoke. Only Congress at this point can demand answers from the FBI, and Ray Epps.

          I feel we the people do deserve answers only the FBI can give.

          1. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            "So, I would be prone to think he would not commit perjury."

            You need to look at his testimony to the January 6 commission and then at the video released by Tucker Carlson.

            In his sworn testimony to the 1/6 Committee, Epps said that he left the Capitol immediately after texting his nephew “I orchestrated it.” However, surveillance video shows him on Capitol grounds 30 minutes later. 

            The video also shows how others got arrested for something Epps did and yet Epps did not get arrested.

            "NEW VIDEO of Ray Epps Hurling GIANT Trump Sign at Police on Jan. 6 But Was Never Arrested Like Several Trump Supporters Who Touched that Same Sign "

            https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 … tee-video/

  13. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 15 months ago

    61% Believe Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot

    Voters overwhelmingly support releasing all videos of the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and a majority think it’s likely that government agents helped provoke the riot.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 80% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is important that the public be able to view all the videos of the Capitol riot, including 58% who think it’s Very Important. Only 17% don’t think it’s important for the public to be able to see all the riot videos.

    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public … pitol_riot

    1. TheShadowSpecter profile image81
      TheShadowSpecterposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Transparency is definitely needed in this situation.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image90
        Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

        I was shocked to see so many Americans feel that  61% Believe the Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot.

        I truely feel we need transparency, it's the only way to get to the truth and try to work on putting this behind us.

        I was on board with Cruz after the 2020 election having a quick investigation into Trump's allegations. If we would have done that, we would have obtained the truth and again moved on.

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          I think it speaks volumes about what people think of our government to believe such a thing is possible.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Anything and everything, the most loathsome despicable acts against humanity you have ever heard about or seen... and more.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image90
            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            I truely think that a large majority have little to no trust in our government.

            We have been lied to. We have a president that is not capable of making sound decisions, as well as to looks very much possible this president has been playing pay-for-play for some time. As well as he is very clear he has weaponized the DOJ, FBI, etc.

            And a Congress that will not address the need to remove him.

            1. Kathleen Cochran profile image75
              Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              You've been lied to?

              I'm so sorry.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                I l kindly agree to disagree. There is a Congressional committee investigating the many issues they feel Biden and his administration have weaponized several Fed agencies. I have become very convinced that this administration, as well as Biden, has been very much politically corrupt, and dishonest.

              2. Valeant profile image84
                Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Funny, I think they were lied to about Biden's fitness for office.  If they listened to his State of the Union, they would have seen someone very present and capable.

                And they put their trust in a lying conman who fabricated fraud, but distrust actual government agencies.  Not sure how much stock we should put in the seriousness of their judgment abilities.

                As for pay-for-play and weaponization, both of those were absolutely acceptable when their party had control of the government.  When it becomes an issue equally, then people will believe it to be more than just partisan whining.

            2. TheShadowSpecter profile image81
              TheShadowSpecterposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              I saw a news flash one evening stating that Joe Biden had less than an 11 percent approval rating from the American people regarding his intentions to run for reelection in 2024.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has even announced recently that he intends to run for president on the Democratic ticket in 2024, which makes Joe Biden look even worse inasmuch as it is uncommon for someone to run against an incumbent on the same party ticket.  It's almost like Mr. Kennedy is making a statement to the world through his actions that the American people have no faith in Joe Biden's ability to preside over our nation.

            3. Ken Burgess profile image73
              Ken Burgessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Nieve or inexperienced are good words to use for anyone that trusts our federal government and its agencies (IE - FBI).

              This nation was founded on lack of trust of government and those who founded it comprehended the more power a government had, the less freedom individuals would have.

              ‘Discredit, disrupt, and destroy’: FBI records acquired by the Library reveal violent surveillance of Black leaders, civil rights organizations.
              https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/news/fbi

              They have only refined their techniques and improved the technology since those times.

              In the name of "national security", the Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet. While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.

              First implemented after 9/11 during Bush Jr., when Obama had the chance to rescind those intrusions into the privacy of Americans, he instead increased the capacity and abilities the Patriot Act allowed for.

              The Patriot Act basically upends the 4th Amendment, Americans no longer have privacy protection rights, law officials no longer need to use Warrants to gain access to your home or personal information.

              It is highly probable due to the nature of the Biden Administration's infatuation with Trump and his supporters, and the battle Trump fought with the FBI (costing more than one top ranking person to lose their jobs) that the FBI currently classifies ‘Mainstream’ Conservatives as Domestic Terrorists.

              Conservatives Are in The Same Category As Islamic Terrorists
              https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/10/di … errorists/

              I believe this to be the 'mindset' of the folks who run the FBI today.  Same with the Biden Administration concerning Conservatives and all non RINO-Republicans.

              I harken back to what I mentioned regarding Social Credit and CBDC and how those were deployed in China.  It really only works in a one party system and there are a great many like-minded individuals across the spectrum in DC that want to take us there.

              1. TheShadowSpecter profile image81
                TheShadowSpecterposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Well, it's like this, Ken.  Diehard FBI fans will insist that the initials "FBI" stand for Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.  However, I must counter their contention by pointing out that the initials "FBI" really stand for Fascist Bastion of Imbeciles.  They're an institution of Neanderthals who have no respect for the rights of everyday Americans.

 
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)