Jan 6th and this is chilling

[Ghost of a Rider]

Well that's easily disproven.

Cruz: "How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?"

Sanborn: "Sir, I'm sure you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of sources and methods..."

Cruz: "Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th? Yes or no."

Sanborn: "Sir, I can't answer that."

Cruz: "Did any FBI agents of confidential informants commit crimes of violence on January 6th."

Sanborn: "I can't answer that, sir."

My mistake. But I was only half wrong. It still raises the question as to why she could not answer about the agents. After all, the question was how many agents OR CIs.

 

[Pellinore]

Forgive me for just stepping into this thread.

Is there anything to this besides an FBI agent not wanting to disclose their tactics or manpower into a live mic?

 

[XponentialChaos]

My mistake. But I was only half wrong. It still raises the question as to why she could not answer about the agents. After all, the question was how many agents OR CIs.

She started to explain in the beginning that she couldn't get into specifics. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that the FBI isn't going to show their hand, whether we like it or not.

It doesn't need to be an elaborate conspiracy theory.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

She started to explain in the beginning that she couldn't get into specifics. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that the FBI isn't going to show their hand, whether we like it or not.

He didn't ask for any specifics or inquire about "sources and methods" beyond how many were there or if any participated in acts of violence.

My question is: If the answer to these questions is none, why not say so? To do so would reveal absolutely nothing about sources and methods or identities. It would not tip the F.B.I.'s hand in any way.

It doesn't need to be an elaborate conspiracy theory.

Didn't say it was. But the irony here is that Democrats are criticizing and dismissing the conservative conspiracy theory while pushing one of their own.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Forgive me for just stepping into this thread.

Is there anything to this besides an FBI agent not wanting to disclose their tactics or manpower into a live mic?

it was very simple, she could have dispelled criminal culpability but did not.. That door is now open and fair game to ask very serious questions.

 

[XponentialChaos]

My question is: If the answer to these questions is none, why not say so? To do so would reveal absolutely nothing about sources and methods or identities. It would not tip the F.B.I.'s hand in any way.

Revealing what wasn’t done is still revealing information. Revealing who isn’t an FBI agent is still revealing information.

The simply don’t want to reveal any information when it comes to undercover agents and undercover informants. Simple. I just provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for these actions. It doesn’t need to be the elaborate conspiracy theory you guys are pushing for it to be.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Revealing what wasn’t done is still revealing information. Revealing who isn’t an FBI agent is still revealing information.

The simply don’t want to reveal any information when it comes to undercover agents and undercover informants. Simple. I just provided a perfectly reasonable explanation for these actions. It doesn’t need to be the elaborate conspiracy theory you guys are pushing for it to be.

Epps is a perfect example of an undercover agent. However, he was observed inciting a riot. He was initially wanted for his behavior but that all magically went away even though his conduct was clearly unlawful. Just like the Whitmer case the main informants and conspirators were government agents. From the evidence presented so far, Epps should be charged. The fact he is not, makes me wonder if the same game played in the Whitmer case by the FBI, was being used here as well, with Pelosi's knowledge and that is why the security posture was unacceptably low..

 

[XponentialChaos]

Epps is a perfect example of an undercover agent. However, he was observed inciting a riot.

Or not. The video you guys keep pushing clearly shows him specifying to be PEACEFUL.

That’s not inciting a riot. That’s not a crime.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Or not. The video you guys keep pushing clearly shows him specifying to be PEACEFUL.

That’s not inciting a riot. That’s not a crime.

Epps is clearly seen giving instructions to individuals, at which point, they go immediately and commit crimes... The link is clear even though you refuse to see it. I would detain these people and figure out how they are connected. From what I have seen, none of these people were detained and none of them were deposed. WHY? whom were they working for? There is simply too much circumstantial evidence to discount them, without proper investigations, which appears to never have been done. WHY? Who is protecting them and why?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Epps is clearly seen giving instructions to individuals at which point the go immediately and commit crimes...

That's an assumption. You don't know what he's telling them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's an assumption. You don't know what he's telling them.

And that is the problem... No one is telling us... The Circumstantial evidence is damming and raises a huge number of questions that the Jan 6 committee is refusing to address.. WHY???????

 

[BackAgain]

Leave no conspiracy theory stone unturned.

It is beyond pathetic and embarrassing that a sitting United States Senator is putting this shit forward.

Yeah. Outrageous that anything suspicious like this should be allowed to be contemplated!

I would suggest it merits a criminal investigation.

 

[XponentialChaos]

And that is the problem... No one is telling us...

Because nobody knows.

A video of him whispering something to someone can be anything and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to know what he said at that moment.

It could be anything. It doesn't need to be a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because nobody knows.

A video of him whispering something to someone can be anything and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to know what he said at that moment.

It could be anything. It doesn't need to be a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

BULL SHIT!!! And I say that as a retired Law Enforcement Officer. IF no one knows, they are not doing their damn jobs and again WHY are they not doing their damn jobs?? Who is protecting the suspects? Who is thwarting a proper investigation...? None of your excuses are valid... NONE!!

 

[XponentialChaos]

BULL SHIT!!! And I say that as a retired Law Enforcement Officer. IF no one knows, they are not doing their damn jobs and again WHY are they not doing their damn jobs?? Who is protecting the suspects? Who is thwarting a proper investigation...? None of your excuses are valid... NONE!!

You’re a retired LEO and you think we can determine what somebody whispered to someone else in a crowd like that? LoL ok then.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

She started to explain in the beginning that she can't go into the specifics of this.

The most obvious answer is that she's simply not allowed to confirm or deny whether anyone is a confidential informant. Pretty simple. It doesn't need to be an elaborate conspiracy.

She can't answer "no" to if the FBI was part of the Jan 6th capital riot? Crazy. You're crazy.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You’re a retired LEO and you think we can determine what somebody whispered to someone else in a crowd like that? LoL ok then.

Why could she not say? No agents but yes to informants? If they had informants there why didn't they SoS for help?

 

[XponentialChaos]

She can't answer "no" to if the FBI was part of the Jan 6th capital riot? Crazy. You're crazy.

Seems far more reasonable than the ridiculous conspiracy theory that you’re pushing.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Why could she not say? No agents but yes to informants? If they had informants there why didn't they SoS for help?

Already explained. She said she couldn’t go into the specific details. I’m not sure why you think it’s reasonable to expect the FBI to share everything they know and do with someone like you. That’s not what they do.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What’s more reasonable:

A) The FBI simply doesn’t want to confirm or deny anyone suspected of being an undercover agent or undercover informant.

B) Ray Epps is an undercover FBI agent. The FBI plotted to trick Trump supporters into attacking the Capitol because they wanted Trump supporters to look dumb or make Trump look bad. Trump supporters, tricked by the very clever FBI, took the bait and attacked the Capitol. The FBI, triumphant in their devious plan to make Trump supporters look dangerous, forgot that their inside man Ray Epps was one of their own. They put Ray Epps on their Most Wanted list. Then they say whoops that’s our own guy and take him off the list.

Hmmmm I’ll go with A.