A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, but there is proof. Maybe not conclusive, but it is there if you are not being willfully blind. I've seen plenty of links about "unindicted co-conspirators". Videos of white men saying, "we have to go into the capitol!" who our corporate legacy media are spectacularly un-interested in.
Example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cker-Carlson-claims-insurrection-planned.html
"Carlson said that those people were FBI agents, who drove the plot to attack "
Of course, the legacy corporate media cannot wait to chime in that unasked questions and un arrested people are evidence that there is no reason to think the FBI involved in 1/6.
Biden was elected and won the popular vote. Its a gigantic stretch to say he doesn't represent the people. And the argument that stolen vote cancels out actual votes doesn't hold water because there were no stolen votes. Its the attempts of the Republicans to steal the election which cancels out real votes.
You too good sir or madam. I haven't even bothered looking at the other guy's response. Not worth the eye strain.
It really is amazing how unarmed black people can be murdered without just cause and your first instinct is to say, "IT'S A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE WHITE PEOPLES!!!"
So in response to his texts about Jan 6th leaking, Sean Hannity has announced he's going on vacation to "center myself, find God and get the creative juices flowing"
Which sounds like a fancy way of saying hookers and blow and flashing an intern, but whatever. At least he's gone for a few weeks.
Which sounds like a fancy way of saying hookers and blow and flashing an intern, but whatever. At least he's gone for a few weeks.
Creative juices? Is that him admitting that a lot of the nonsense he says is a result of creative spinning/fabricating?
Huh...I never even thought of it that way. I assumed it was a sex thing. Yeah...yeah, who values creativity in journalistic reporting? You're not supposed to be creative, you're supposed to be factual. Like the last thing you want a reporter to do is creatively report on the facts/story, or have a creative interpretation of events.
I read that whole thing, and it damaged my brain to the point where I'm almost ready to start agreeing with you. "Why won't they disclose all their evidence when they're still prosecuting?! IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY!"ITMT: I am referring to Tucker Carlson's documentary that is behind a paywall. It does exist. Example of coverage.
FBI Operatives Likely ‘Unindicted Co-Conspirators’, Organizers Of Capitol Riot: Report
FBI Operatives Likely 'Unindicted Co-Conspirators', Organizers Of Capitol Riot: Report Tucker Carlson dropped several bombshells on his show Tuesdawww.nationandstate.com
You can't possibly believe all of this, or you'd still be deciding what to have for breakfast yesterday.
What is not conclusive is therefore not proof.
Let's stop and think for a moment. Let's say the mob that stormed the Capitol was 5,000-10,000 people. When something happens involving thousands of people, when have you ever noticed the media identifying every single one of them? Why does anyone think the media would do that: what would they get out it, to make it remotely worth their time, money and effort? Don't they always just pick a few particularly salient examples (like the shaman guy and the one with his boots on Pelosi's desk) and run with them as iconic, representative images?
In order to make this implication, someone's trying to say there is something sinister about the "legacy media" doing something incredibly normal and sensible for the media to do. It only takes a small amount of consideration to realise how unconvincing this line is.
Carlson says they were FBI agents? Okay: evidence. Where is it?
Are we seriously arguing "My mate Dave said this guy was an FBI agent" meets any reasonable standard of evidence? Replace 'FBI agent' with 'Peruvian apocalypse cultist', 'a high ranking mafioso', or 'Vladimir Putin in a disguise'. Why not? Because none of those are significantly less reasonable. There's a word for believing in something with no significant justification, and that word is gullibility.
It's been a core part of the Republican argument behind all this: "You can't prove that my batshit-crazy theory is not true, so it must be true!"
I'm using the term as synonymous with evidence which it isn't always. You have a point. Evidence then. Evidence is not conclussive. Heck, it can lead you down the wrong path. But yeah, there's evidence of this.
Tucker includes a woman that is put through heck being questioned. The investigators show her a picture of "her" at the capitol. A brief glimpse and she points out that the picture isn't her.
They're going that far, but then ignore footage of a guy demanding that they go into the capitol? I don't think so.
Tucker states charging documents against the 1/6 defendants do reference un-indicted co conspirators in them. Why un-indicted? Who are they? Has anyone asked how many FBI agents are embedded in groups such as the oath keepers and proud boys? Is the answer 0? To my knowledge, this is a dog that didn't bark.
Tucker Carlson accuses the FBI of being behind January 6 Capitol riot
Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night pointed to the number of 'unindicted co-conspirators' from the Capitol riot, arguing they were FBI agents spurring on the insurrectionists.
I think this article over-states what Carlson was saying. He seemed to be asking questions rather than making conclusive accusations.
There has to be a "Freedom of Information" way to get more information.
Uh-huh, but the Republicans attempted to invalidate tens of millions, by discounting entire States. That far, far outweighs any and all fraud even according to those who believed in widespread Democratic fraud. And they were happy to do so even without any actual proof the fraud occurred.
You have no problem with mass disenfranchisement and anti-democratic practices when they suit your favoured candidate. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Absolutely everything you've described here applies to Donald Trump... even more so.
Last edited:
Ah the ''just asking questions'' grift. The one where they already have an answer they want you to believe but know they'll lose legitimacy if they outright state this to be the answer.
Aren't we at the point where Tucker saying something actually reduces the chances of it being true? Haven't we been at that point for ages? To the point his own news agency says Tucker can't get in trouble for deceiving people because he's so extreme that only crazy people would believe him?
Yes I think I came across something like that. A video outlaying Tucker's video made an interesting point. This ''being put through heck'' is actually fairly common procedure with the FBI or in US prisons and that this was all considered fine and dandy until the Trump cult had to endure these things. That the Trump cult would deem you a bleeding heart if you pointed to these exact same tactics being used on minorities or leftists.
I don't think so. The oligarchs of whom I write seem to despise him. Though he is accused by some of his disillusioned followers as being solicitous to them once in power. He seemed, for some, to want to dance with those that did not bring him.
My point is, if they're willing to go to these lengths, they seem awfully un-interrested in footage of actual people openly egging the trespassers on. Why? Again, just seems to be the dog that didn't bark. I have to think a Freedom of Information application should be able to get some answers on this. I think we should all be curious and not just take the government's word for it.
And as we know, a silver spoon born man with a golden toilet who claims to be the world's greatest tech expert AND theologian really does represent us all.
A real estate hustler known for ruthless deals and screwing people over being solicitous to people once in power? That's just plain SHOCKING! Unexpected! /s
Firstly, questioning someone who turns out to be innocent is hardly rare in the world of policing, nor is hard questioning. Secondly, they need to identify the guy in the video and/or find him and/or get round to him. None of those things are necessarily easy. If they don't have evidence of him in the capitol or doing something other than saying they should go in, is that enough to charge him? Again, there are plenty of reasonable explanations for why there is a disparity between these two cases. Lots of such disparities will exist, and will have done at many similar incidents. The two incidents are juxtaposed to make an implication, but there's actually nothing there.
Carlson's not just "asking questions". He's asking leading questions to encourage people to believe something that Carlson knows full well he cannot provide any adequate evidence for (and never will because it doesn't exist). He's doing this because he knows there are a bunch of gullible people out there who will latch onto it, because they want to believe this wasn't Trump supporters fired up by Trump to intimidate the legislature. And those gullible people will talk to other people and explain to those people earnestly and passionately about how the Capitol riot was entrapment by the FBI (as Carlson suggested they should believe), so those other people may be inclined to believe it, too.
And the more people who believe that, the fewer there are to believe that an outgoing president raised a mob against the legislature in an attempt to overturn a democratic election.
* * *
Meanwhile, we have a real conspiracy staring us in the face. Presenters like Hannity and Ingraham were on 6th Jan frantically contacting the White House to get Trump to go on TV and condemn the riot, or get them to ease off, because it made all of them - from Trump to his media cheerleaders - look really, really bad. And when Trump wouldn't do that, they went onto TV in the evening and told a totally different story to their viewers. This is media conspiracy and dishonesty as plain, ruthless and unethical as it gets. Shouldn't we be thinking a great deal more about that than we should about the "questions" Carlson is "asking"?
Yeah. Its really surprising how surprised his fans were about it.