-->
@Reece101
From a big tent conservative perspective:Dude shouldn’t have said the hard r.
It's okay. I'm black when it's convenient for me
Feds admit jan 6 was a false flag
Posts
Total:
92
-->
@Wylted
Cruz then broadened his question by asking if any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot."Sir, I can’t answer that," she said.
Can you please explain why any FBI agent would answer this question?
-->
@Double_R
To dispel notions that the FBI participated in a riot or to admit they did. The informant part, you'd want to keep confidential, so here is how you would respond if the answer is no.
"As far as informants are concerned, I can’t answer, but no FBI agents did so"
"As far as informants are concerned, I can’t answer, but no FBI agents did so"
-->
@Danielle
@Double_R
Imagine asking the top law enforcement agency in the country if they participated in what they are calling an attempt to overthrow the government, and they don't reply with a stern, immediate NO.
-->
@Reece101
One of the reasons I loved the show so much. It's knack for satire was second to none (and that includes South Park--another favorite.)
I assume Athias is on the right. He seems like it.
Not at all. Athias is Athias. I promote, endorse, and exhibit the principles of individualism. The "left" tends to be a magnet for my criticisms because the position is completely deluded. And chances are, given that this is the internet, most of those whom I've encountered and will encounter will espouse this "leftist" ideology.
-->
@Wylted
Imagine asking the top law enforcement agency in the country if they participated in what they are calling an attempt to overthrow the government, and they don't reply with a stern, immediate NO.
Imagine asking the top law enforcement agency to reveal their methods of operations and breach confidentiality just because some dipshit like Ted Cruz asked them to when they have no legal obligation or logical reason to answer.
I already explained to you why answering "I can't answer that" proves nothing and you didn't respond. I can only assume you don't have a response and you realize that's true, which I'm sure stirs up some doubt or cognitive dissonance within you. That's a good start.
Please note that repeating what you said in the OP doesn't negate a thing I said - it's just you doubling down which proves my theory that you have no interest in the truth; it appears you want the conspiracy to be real. The fact that you haven't answered how I can disprove your theory when I asked you 2x also seems to validate that point.
Ask yourself why you keep dodging my questions. For instance, was Ashlii Bobbitt a Fed? What was the purpose of this "false flag?"
It is straight up gross that Ted Cruz, looking to regain credibility among Trumpkins after calling the January 6 a terrorist attack last week (which you also ignored) is now trying to convince people that he is on their side. It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain that one random person yelling "fed!" at another random person in a crowd proves positively nothing at all about the accused individual yet alone a Deep State conspiracy. That's not evidence. That's literally just an accusation without evidence.
You're better than this.
-->
@RationalMadman
You are being really nasty about him and his wife for no real reason, there's much worse than Cruz out there and their attractiveness is irrelevant.
No reason? Ted Cruz is a piece of shit.
I was being facetious in reference to when Donald Trump called Ted Cruz's wife ugly (among other insults) and Cruz kissed his ass anyway.
-->
@Athias
Did Athias just speak about himself in third person?
What principals of individualism do you exhibit exactly?
-->
@Athias
The left is at constant war with the individual and the philosophy of a society built on individual agency and accountability.
-->
@Danielle
“I already explained to you why answering "I can't answer that" proves nothing and you didn't respond. I can only assume you don't have a response and you realize that's true, which I'm sure stirs up some doubt or cognitive dissonance within you. That's a good start.”
I did answer, because your explanations were lacking. I will refresh your memory.
You stated
“Obviously saying "I can't answer that" proves positively nothing. First off, she could legitimately not know the answer to how many informants were present on January 6 and therefore she would be unable to answer honestly. Second, if you ask me if one of my clients (investors) is Barack Obama, I would have to respond "I can't answer that" and my doing so would give you zero insight as to whether the answer is yes or no let alone qualify as evidence of any kind. You literally learned nothing by her answering that way, and the desire to find the answer incriminatory cannot be justified by logic; only bias. The whole organization (FBI) operates on secrecy. Why the FUCK would they answer questions about who their confidential informants are?“
If your client is not barack obama, it makes absolutely no sense, to not just say no. You only need the other statement if you do have obama as a client.
I gave her a pass on the informants part of the question. She clearly might want to keep that confidential, but she could answer her question like I suggested in another post, where I said a better response would be like the one I suggest here
“He also asked about FBI agents, not just informants. So she could have said something like
"Informants I can't answer, but none of my agents called for illegal actions"”
You gave another example where you said the following, and my response followed. If she hates guestimating she could say “I don’t know, as opposed to I can’t answer which would be more accurate.
“How many of my colleagues were in the office today? I can't answer that. OH WOW I MUST BE LYING OR AN IDIOT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER 🙄🙄🙄🙄 Lol such fucking dipshit logic”
Why are women like this? I would just answer "I don't know, about 20"
“Notice you didn't answer my question of what it would take to convince you that this theory is horse shit because deep down you want to believe it's true.”
What would convince me is a reasonable explanation of why she answered the way she did, that takes into account my objections. If I have any bias, it is the incredulity bias, which I can’t get rid of, due to my belief it Is unethical not to know the reason for something and assume, the worst when it isn’t obvious to me”
Maybe I am approaching this wrong. My theory doesn’t matter to me. I don’t know what happened on January 6. I know her answers don’t add up to me, and I am trying to figure out why she answered the way she did. I figured there were enough lawyers and wannabe lawyers on here, that I could get a clear picture.
Would the answers to the following questions be different.
1. Did Feds or informants participate in the riot?
2. Did feds participate in the riot in an official capacity?
3. Did informants participate in the riot?
Let’s say she is reasonably confident, that no feds participated in an official capacity. She could answer the first one.
No feds did, but I can’t answer in regards to informants
the second she could answer
no
the third she could answered
I am unable to answer that question at this time
That’s not giving away tactics or methods. We should pretty much always be pretty confident the answer is no. The only reason to not answer no, would be because it is a yes, unless I am missing something.
-->
@Danielle
I was being facetious in reference to when Donald Trump called Ted Cruz's wife ugly (among other insults) and Cruz kissed his ass anyway.
That's just DC politics as usual. Hell, Kamala called Biden a straight up racist and was rewarded with a VP job.
-->
@Greyparrot
She actually prefaced her question to him in the debate by saying “I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground... but something something about him opposing bussing... and that little girl was me." She definitely challenged him on his past record without explicitly insulting him. I think you would admit that Trump played a whole different ball game. He made fun out of all his opponents whereas the Dems were forced to play nice and not say too many harsh things knowing it would be used against the nominee.
Also Harris was chosen as VP because the Dems essentially demanded a black VP, and they didn't really have other options aside from Stacy Abrams who just lost the race for Governor. Trump picked his VP based on who would be loyal to him and nothing more. He singlehandedly dominates the GOP with all potential candidates even today needing to go through him and get his blessing or else their career is essentially nonexistent. I really hope he faces off against DeSantis but I know he doesn't have the balls.
Anyway, that is a fair point you made about politics but Cruz has no stones. It wouldn't make sense to think he'd go rogue and somehow stand up against the Establishment. He is the Establishment.
-->
@Wylted
I will read that and respond tomorrow. Just kinda fucking around tonight but I'll get back to ya.
Oh Trump also picked Pence for the Evangelical vote, but mostly the presumed loyalty and docile personality.
-->
@Danielle
Trump picked his VP based on who would be loyal to him and nothing more
Trump is obviously not an evangelical christian and those people were worried about his moral compass, so he brought Pence in. If he wanted loyalty, I think he would have went with somebody like Pat Buchanon.
will read that and respond tomorrow. Just kinda fucking around tonight but I'll get back to ya.
I understand that.
Also I saw your evangelical statement, but don't feel like changing this
He fucked up with the loyalty thing and underestimated Pence's integrity. Pence basically was on a path to be a future president, but decided to stay loyal to his ill conceived values
-->
@Wylted
Imagine asking the top law enforcement agency in the country if they participated in what they are calling an attempt to overthrow the government, and they don't reply with a stern, immediate NO.
No, they wouldn’t, because it’s not their job to refute your conspiracy theories.
As Danielle has explained to you thoroughly and repeatedly - this was a legal proceeding. The same colloquial standards that apply to you or in a conversation about who either of us slept with does not apply to an organization who’s number one priority in these proceedings is to ensure they do not give away anything that can negatively impact their investigations.
-->
@Double_R
s number one priority in these proceedings is to ensure they do not give away anything that can negatively impact their investigations.
How would saying that no FBI agents were directed to overthrow the government, impact their investigation?
-->
@Wylted
How would saying that no FBI agents were directed to overthrow the government, impact their investigation?
Because, as Danielle already explained to you, when you take the position of not answering questions on a given topic, you have to not answer questions on that topic. You cannot pick and choose which questions you answer because then every non-answer becomes what is called a negative inference. If the witness is willing to answer question X but not question Y, then clearly they are hiding something on question Y. So by not answering certain questions, you are in effect answering them.
This is the exact same thing that happened in the OJ Simpson trial when Mark Furman had to come back to address his rampant use of the N word after testifying that he never uses it. To protect himself he had to plead the fifth. After it became obvious that he was going to plead the fifth for every single question no matter the question the defense got slick and asked him something irrelevant to the immediate issue… “did you plant the glove”. He had to not answer that too.
That worked with the jury because the jury was ignorant, and wanted to see past the obvious but just needed a reason to. That sound bite played into the conspiracy despite being nothing more than a technicality. The defense knew all of this but they knew they could use this to manipulate the jury, just as Ted Cruz knows better but is using this to manipulate you. And clearly it’s working.
-->
@Double_R
Because, as Danielle already explained to you, when you take the position of not answering questions on a given topic, you have to not answer questions on that topic. You cannot pick and choose which questions you answer because then every non-answer becomes what is called a negative inference
She didn't explain that. Also with furhman, he actually pled the 5th. I don't recall the FBI director taking the 5th, at all. it seems unique to the 5th amendment and the 5th amendment is treated different in LA county than other districts
-->
@Wylted
My point had nothing to do with the 5th amendment, I was using it as an example. This isn’t complicated…
Person A: “Did you sleep with Jane?”
Person B: “No”
Person A: “Did you sleep with Marry?”
Person B: “I can’t answer that”
Obviously, Person B slept with Marry, or at the very least it’s a reasonable inference based in the above. I’m sure there’s a term for this, but the point is that as soon as you open yourself up to answering questions about any given topic you put yourself in this situation. This is why anyone who knows anything about taking questions from the media or in legal proceedings knows that there are certain topics you cannot get into.
-->
@Double_R
This is why anyone who knows anything about taking questions from the media or in legal proceedings knows that there are certain topics you cannot get into.
citation needed
-->
@Wylted
Citation needed for what? Do you understand anything I just said? Do you have a response to it?
-->
@Double_R
citation for media or witness training that suggests people take the tactic you brought up. The one I quoted. There are MOOC's so it should be easy to get that data on media or witness training, if it exists
-->
@Wylted
Everything I just said is not only common knowledge, it’s common sense. That’s why I had to lower the IQ level here to a simplified Marry/Jane example. If you need me to find this for you it’s no wonder you believe this nonsense.
-->
@Double_R
Common sense and IQ aren't necessarily related.
-->
@Double_R
I gotta give credit where credit is due. Your post #79 is perhaps the best substantiation of a point I’ve seen you make on this forum. I even learned something new with your OJ trial insight. It helps that I already agreed with the point beforehand, but in any case, well done.
-->
@Double_R
I just realized something. You are simultaneously saying it is because of the 5th amendment and because of media training when I pointed out she didn't plead the 5th. This is called backpedaling.
Are you just trying to search for reasonable explanations that fit your world view, I stead of figuring out the real reasons for somebody's actions?
-->
@Wylted
For the second time, my point had nothing to do with the 5th amendment. I used an example of someone invoking their 5th amendment rights in order to convey the concept of not answering *any* questions related to a given topic. And when that didn’t work I shifted to a much simpler example instead.
I also never said anything was because of media training. Please stop making stuff up. My point there was to point out that anyone *who knows* how to deal with particular lines of questioning would have done the same thing.
-->
@Wylted
The rumor is that Ray Epps is working for the FBI and the Director was explicitly asked about him. If she confirms someone is not an agent or that an agent is not involved in one instance, then the next time there is an accusation against an individual and she does not answer, it puts that person at risk. Therefore the FBI policy has always been to answer that way and not give any information about the involvement of agents or informants. Ted Cruz knows that so all of that was just political theater. He asked the same question three times in a row for dramatic emphasis knowing she wouldn't answer any differently. In fact she answered improperly when she said she knew of Ray Epps but wasn't aware of his background. She never should have mentioned the word background; she should have just said she knew he existed and that's it. Every lawyer on the planet would tell you the best way to answer a question is with as little information as possible. It's not incriminatory - it's common sense. And especially in the case of FBI, it's just good policy.
Think about this. Even before January 6, the FBI was clear that the groups most likely to commit acts of terrorism were domestic extremist groups. It would be bizarre if they weren't engaged in all kinds of infiltration efforts of these groups given they proclaim them to be the biggest threats to national security.
We know the FBI uses informants to provoke people into plots (see examples in the War on Terror). The three main groups instigating the January 6 attacks were the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters - all groups the FBI is likely infiltrating. But the glaring fact of the matter is that even if some Feds were involved, it doesn't prove it was a plot by the Feds. All over social media there were Trumpkins talking about going to Washington DC on January 6 and bragging about what would take place. You can see far-right activists all over social media urging them to attend the rally with videos and hashtags calling for civil war and violence. There is evidence that specific instructions for taking the Capitol appeared on sites like Parler, 4chan and Gab, not to mention the encrypted messages they have as well. There is evidence that when the mob was storming the Capitol, people were commenting all over their Live videos to say things like "hang the traitors!" and the mob was encouraged to get violent by fellow Trump supporters. It makes positively no sense to blame the FBI for all of that just like it was equally laughable to blame ANTIFA.
Did you ever respond to the fact that the Oath Keepers had weapons and boats set up to ferry weapons to the Capitol? And was Ashlii Bobbitt a Fed? Remember TRUMP was the one who directed people to go to the Capitol weeks beforehand. At the Stop the Steal rally (lol) Giuliani called for "trial by combat" and the narrative was that Pence was a huge pussy and traitor to the republic, hence Trumpkins chanting "Hang Mike Pence" while they walked over and started to scale the walls. It's pretty ridiculous to blame the FBI for that and for people going to the Capitol generally considering Trumpkins were planning it and bragging about it before, during and after the fact.