For something like the recognition of a national election result, involving large crowds, would you not expect a lot of law enforcement agents to be present?

As one wouldn’t normally expect an attempt to overthrow the election result in a western democracy one would expect they come tooled up to fight a riot.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
For something like the recognition of a national election result, involving large crowds, would you not expect a lot of law enforcement agents to be present?

As one wouldn’t normally expect an attempt to overthrow the election result in a western democracy one would expect they come tooled up to fight a riot.

Except there is a lot of holes in that analysis.

1) First and foremost they tried to hide it even after the fact.
2) They did not participate in the protection.
3) The same intelligence that told them the NG should have been deployed…should have told the FBI that agents present should be ready for any possible scenario.

274 armed FBI agents “could” have been a helluva force. They did nothing and the agency tried to keep their presence under wrap. Begs a lot of questions…at least for me.

1. They are not required to disclose what they're up to. Only in the investigation was it disclosed, under oath, and after evidence was gathered for prosecutions of the criminals.

2. What was their mission? I've answered that. If they had taken Pence of Pelosi captive, I'm pretty sure we would have seen some "protection".

3. "Should have" is too easy for a good conspiracy theorist.

Looks to me that Mitchell got it right: Everything turned out just as planned…in regards to the FBI mission.

The masterplan was to allow, possibly even provide some kindling and matches, a riot to occur to use as political propaganda.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
And, it worked out exactly as it was intended.

Mike said the quiet part out loud.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Looks to me that Mitchell got it right: Everything turned out just as planned…in regards to the FBI mission.

The masterplan was to allow, possibly even provide some kindling and matches, a riot to occur to use as political propaganda.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
And, it worked out exactly as it was intended.

Mike said the quiet part out loud.

Now, there's a fine example of how a set of facts are flipped into a conspiracy theory.

Good job, Lane. You are a friggin' genius. That one was way too easy for you.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Looks to me that Mitchell got it right: Everything turned out just as planned…in regards to the FBI mission.

The masterplan was to allow, possibly even provide some kindling and matches, a riot to occur to use as political propaganda.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
And, it worked out exactly as it was intended.

Mike said the quiet part out loud.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
"And, it worked out exactly as it was intended."
----------------
Up to the point where Trump pardoned the criminals.
====================

I think Lane's conspiracy theories are all lame.

But he's doing the best he can with what he has to work with.

Do you want to see a not-so-lame conspiracy theory?

Lane knows what he's doing. Polarization is a tool. He likes what he sees in Trumpism because if it succeeds it puts him in the la la land dystopia of his dreams, ideologically and financially, and morally (believe that or not).

He's an active agent for Trumpism.

I think we all have been suckered by the biggest con-job on the nation ever seen.

And I think Lane knows it, and is promoting it. It's hard to tell whether Lane is part of the con or the conned. Maybe both.

We're dealing in opinions mostly here. So, here's an opinion:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...QD9?ocid=socialshare

There's a bigger story here — and what Trump is doing isn't politics |
Opinion by Thom Hartmann • 1d •
6 min read

=========================================================

Also, here's an article that isn't headed as opinion:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...W9n?ocid=socialshare

This debunked right-wing conspiracy theory just resurfaced — and MAGA is all over it
Story by Alex Henderson • 1h •
2 min read

Were the FBI agents in some type of uniform. To me, with all the craziness going on that day, civilian dressed FBI agents would blend in to the crowd. I do not remember any video saying these were FBI agents confronting rioters.

quote:

Originally posted by MLindsay:
Were the FBI agents in some type of uniform. To me, with all the craziness going on that day, civilian dressed FBI agents would blend in to the crowd. I do not remember any video saying these were FBI agents confronting rioters.

They were all armed but in plain clothes.

ME

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
For something like the recognition of a national election result, involving large crowds, would you not expect a lot of law enforcement agents to be present?

As one wouldn’t normally expect an attempt to overthrow the election result in a western democracy one would expect they come tooled up to fight a riot.

Except there is a lot of holes in that analysis.

1) First and foremost they tried to hide it even after the fact.
2) They did not participate in the protection.
3) The same intelligence that told them the NG should have been deployed…should have told the FBI that agents present should be ready for any possible scenario.

274 armed FBI agents “could” have been a helluva force. They did nothing and the agency tried to keep their presence under wrap. Begs a lot of questions…at least for me.

Im not seeking to disagree with you, I've not read much about it, hence the question mark.

It just seems that at an event like that one would expect the FBI and other agencies to be present. Im sure there were various agencies present at for example Charlie's coronation or a royal wedding, but they wouldn't be kitted out to quell a riot.

Many of the agents who were there complained, in writing, that they were being used as political tools for the Democrat party and that FBI leadership had lost its impartiality. I think it’s most important that we understand if that is true. If so, that is one heck of an abuse of law-enforcement.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
For something like the recognition of a national election result, involving large crowds, would you not expect a lot of law enforcement agents to be present?

As one wouldn’t normally expect an attempt to overthrow the election result in a western democracy one would expect they come tooled up to fight a riot.

Except there is a lot of holes in that analysis.

1) First and foremost they tried to hide it even after the fact.
2) They did not participate in the protection.
3) The same intelligence that told them the NG should have been deployed…should have told the FBI that agents present should be ready for any possible scenario.

274 armed FBI agents “could” have been a helluva force. They did nothing and the agency tried to keep their presence under wrap. Begs a lot of questions…at least for me.

Im not seeking to disagree with you, I've not read much about it, hence the question mark.

It just seems that at an event like that one would expect the FBI and other agencies to be present. Im sure there were various agencies present at for example Charlie's coronation or a royal wedding, but they wouldn't be kitted out to quell a riot.

Another rightwing conspiracy theory. Yawn.

quote:

Many of the agents who were there complained, in writing, that they were being used as political tools for the Democrat party

There is at least one article/source that says the whole premise of this thread is utter BS.

Fact Check: Many Of 274 FBI Agents Noted In Internal Report Were Responding To January 6 Capitol Riot -- Report Says They Were Not 'Undercover' Or 'Embedded' In Crowd
Alexis Tereszcuk
Sat, September 27, 2025 at 12:48 AM EDT
5 min read

https://www.yahoo.com/news/art...g1b6_O2gVzksoWzcj2dO

Also:

https://www.google.com/search?...134&bih=649&dpr=2.63

https://justthenews.com/sites/...IG-000001-000050.pdf

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/.../reports/25-011.pdfç

worth reading.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Looks to me that Mitchell got it right: Everything turned out just as planned…in regards to the FBI mission.

The masterplan was to allow, possibly even provide some kindling and matches, a riot to occur to use as political propaganda.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
And, it worked out exactly as it was intended.

Mike said the quiet part out loud.

Now I'm a part of your bizarre conspiracy?

Get some help.

No help needed here Mike. Life is absolutely ecstatic in my neck of the woods.

It’s you pathetic liberals who need help!

And, it is not a theory now that 274 plain clothes agents were imbedded in the J6 crowd…fact.

And as you pointed out…the agency’s plan came together. Thanks for pointing that out!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No help needed here Mike. Life is absolutely ecstatic in my neck of the woods.

It’s you pathetic liberals who need help!

And, it is not a theory now that 274 plain clothes agents were imbedded in the J6 crowd…fact.

And as you pointed out…the agency’s plan came together. Thanks for pointing that out!

You just keep patting yourself on the back buddy. It's what you do best.

. . . folks like Lane see a conspiracy behind every tree. Not deploying the National Guard to the Capitol on January 6 . . . conspiracy. Having the FBI at the Capitol on January 6 . . . conspiracy. Reminds me of the old saying, I can teach it round or flat. No matter the issue Lane can teach it to support his distorted world view.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No help needed here Mike. Life is absolutely ecstatic in my neck of the woods.

It’s you pathetic liberals who need help!

And, it is not a theory now that 274 plain clothes agents were imbedded in the J6 crowd…fact.

And as you pointed out…the agency’s plan came together. Thanks for pointing that out!

You just keep patting yourself on the back buddy. It's what you do best.

I said life is good.

It is. Life’s a blessing.

By the way Lane, your buddy Kash Patel said yesterday that the FBI "agents were sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police." Maybe Patel is part of the conspiracy too.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No help needed here Mike. Life is absolutely ecstatic in my neck of the woods.

It’s you pathetic liberals who need help!

And, it is not a theory now that 274 plain clothes agents were imbedded in the J6 crowd…fact.

And as you pointed out…the agency’s plan came together. Thanks for pointing that out!

You just keep patting yourself on the back buddy. It's what you do best.

I said life is good.

It is. Life’s a blessing.

You're weird and transparent. Trying to change J6 history because even you know the sedition that happened that day forever stains you, trump and your party. A crowd of insurrectionists, spurred on by your orange shit-gibbon, tried to change the result of a general election by rioting, assaulting police officers and taking over the Capital of the United States. And, your narrative is that it was all the fault of the FBI.

It's so stupid that it is laughable.

As a Republican, a Conservative, a Citizen, Han 6 stained me.

I had the same feeling watching the breach as I did watching the Towers get struck a second time.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
By the way Lane, your buddy Kash Patel said yesterday that the FBI "agents were sent into a crowd control mission after the riot was declared by Metro Police." Maybe Patel is part of the conspiracy too.

That’s all well and good.

But, it still doesn’t answer the question as to why they were there in the first place and…

…there is no video record of them aiding in riot control or protecting people and property.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No help needed here Mike. Life is absolutely ecstatic in my neck of the woods.

It’s you pathetic liberals who need help!

And, it is not a theory now that 274 plain clothes agents were imbedded in the J6 crowd…fact.

And as you pointed out…the agency’s plan came together. Thanks for pointing that out!

You just keep patting yourself on the back buddy. It's what you do best.

I said life is good.

It is. Life’s a blessing.

You're weird and transparent. Trying to change J6 history because even you know the sedition that happened that day forever stains you, trump and your party. A crowd of insurrectionists, spurred on by your orange shit-gibbon, tried to change the result of a general election by rioting, assaulting police officers and taking over the Capital of the United States. And, your narrative is that it was all the fault of the FBI.

It's so stupid that it is laughable.

I am laughing alright. You are an extremely weird and vile person. You have a hard time even carrying on a civil conversation without vulgarity.

Me, I am a complete norm in my community and considered mainstream. One of my best friends is a lawyer in Dallas. He too a very normal person. If it weren’t for him, I would label lawyers and a kook group…with you as chief kook.

BTW, where did I say anything was the “fault” of the FBI. You are kookier by the day.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
As a Republican, a Conservative, a Citizen, Han 6 stained me.

I had the same feeling watching the breach as I did watching the Towers get struck a second time.

I didn’t care for the riots either.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No help needed here Mike. Life is absolutely ecstatic in my neck of the woods.

It’s you pathetic liberals who need help!

And, it is not a theory now that 274 plain clothes agents were imbedded in the J6 crowd…fact.

And as you pointed out…the agency’s plan came together. Thanks for pointing that out!

You just keep patting yourself on the back buddy. It's what you do best.

I said life is good.

It is. Life’s a blessing.

You're weird and transparent. Trying to change J6 history because even you know the sedition that happened that day forever stains you, trump and your party. A crowd of insurrectionists, spurred on by your orange shit-gibbon, tried to change the result of a general election by rioting, assaulting police officers and taking over the Capital of the United States. And, your narrative is that it was all the fault of the FBI.

It's so stupid that it is laughable.

I am laughing alright. You are an extremely weird and vile person. You have a hard time even carrying on a civil conversation without vulgarity.

Me, I am a complete norm in my community and considered mainstream. One of my best friends is a lawyer in Dallas. He too a very normal person. If it weren’t for him, I would label lawyers and a kook group…with you as chief kook.

BTW, where did I say anything was the “fault” of the FBI. You are kookier by the day.

You posted it this morning. Quick now...make something stupid up about what you meant when you stated that "the agency's plan came together"....goofy knucklehead.

>>>>And, it is not a theory now that 274 plain clothes agents were imbedded in the J6 crowd…fact.

"And as you pointed out…the agency’s plan came together. Thanks for pointing that out!"<<<<<

Fault would imply they were solely responsible.

Not what I said at all.

I do believe that the “establishment” FBI was quite happy to try to facilitate a riot…maybe even egg it on…or at least allow it to happen and to gain political advantage.

Of course we know (or at least most of us )…that a riot can’t occur without rioters…in which the “fault” really lies.

quote:

I do believe that the “establishment” FBI was quite happy to try to facilitate a riot…maybe even egg it on…or at least allow it to happen and to gain political advantage.

Dear Hell.

Every line’s fault but those responsible.

Talk about egging it on. Trump’s whole big lie that convinced them to revolt is the catalyst.

Mike is a professed liberal. At least I can respect him for honesty.

The Little Lord of Louisville claims to be a conservative. What a joke.

You have confined yourself has a use tool this whole thread.

The sad part is you don’t believe a word you have said on this thread.

Jan 6 is the fault of Trump and those who were convicted. No one else. Well, the various media outlets that breathed oxegrn on Trump’s fire. And folks like you who keep trying to make the lies true.

274 agents would be roughly 10% of the illegal entrants to the Capitol on 1/6.

That should have in itself been enough to stop the entry if they were in the Capitol and not throughout the mob that was at the Trump rally.

Add in Capitol police and it certainly would have stopped the internal illegal activity.

I certainly am unimpressed that the FBI did not want to be open and transparent about their presence. What are they trying to protect by refusing to answer at this point? All 274 should be able to be subpoenaed and asked to testify as to what they did.

It sounds more like incompetence than any attempt to either protect anything or cause any provocation to misbehave.

No way they could have stopped the March to the Capitol, but they could have stopped the invasion of the Capitol and any attempt of disrupting government business inside the building.

The FBI certainly did not cause the riots or the invasion… but they also certainly didn’t do anything to stop it.

The part that bothers me about the FBI is the refusal to say what they were doing and why.

I don’t buy the idea that federal law enforcement is not accountable to the people and that they have no obligation to tell us what they were doing. It’s obviously now not an active investigation… Trump torpedoed it.

Dr. E admitted it was no fault but that of the rioters that they did what they did. That seems asked and answered.

Why folks in the legal field are defending not making the whole situation clear by transparency is beyond me.

If they can claim that the agents lives are endangered by them testifying, I have no issue with de identifying the testimony, but this doesn’t pass the smell test to me. There is no reason to not make a clear slate of it.

And federal law enforcement has been caught being involved in creating crimes before, so it has a reason to not hide what they did do.

Even if it makes the FBI look like the keystone cops.

Trump and Trumpsters have burned credibility with their lies and conspiracy theories.

Doc, do you remember this:

Aesop's Fables

AI Overview

The classic fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" tells of a bored shepherd boy who tricks villagers by repeatedly shouting "Wolf!" until a real wolf appears, at which point no one believes his desperate cries for help, leading to the loss of his sheep. The moral is that people won't believe a liar, even when they're telling the truth, highlighting the importance of honesty and maintaining trust within a community.

The Story
Boredom and a Prank: A shepherd boy, responsible for watching a flock of sheep, becomes bored and decides to play a trick on the villagers.

False Alarms: The boy runs to the village, crying out, "Wolf! Wolf!" to get the villagers' attention. The villagers rush to help, but they find no wolf, and the boy laughs at them.

Repeat Offense: The boy repeats the false alarm again, either the next day or a few days later. The villagers come running once more, only to discover it's another lie.

The Real Danger: A real wolf eventually appears and begins attacking the sheep.

Loss of Credibility: The boy cries "Wolf! Wolf!" in genuine terror, but the villagers, no longer trusting him, ignore his pleas, believing it's just another trick.

The Consequence: The wolf scatters and eats the sheep because no one came to help the boy.

The Moral Lesson
The fable teaches a critical lesson about trust and honesty. By repeatedly lying, the boy destroys his credibility with the villagers. As a result, when the real danger arises, no one believes him, demonstrating that:
Lying has consequences: People will not believe a liar, even when they are telling the truth.

Trust is fragile: It takes time and effort to build trust, and it can be easily broken by deception.

==========================================

It's not that this claim is the real wolf. It's another false claim.

Trump is the real wolf, and this lie is a distraction.

IMO, it's just wasted intellect trying to figure it out.

===========================================

Oc·cam's ra·zor
/ˌäkəmz ˈrāzər/
noun
the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.

https://www.google.com/search?...gHGw&sclient=gws-wiz

AI Overview

Occam's razor is a principle that states the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is generally the best one, or that when faced with competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions should be preferred. Named after the 14th-century philosopher William of Ockham, it suggests that unnecessary complexities should be "shaved away" from an explanation until only the essential elements remain.

Key Aspects of Occam's Razor
Simplicity:
The core of the principle is a preference for uncomplicated explanations over those with many intricate parts.

Fewer Assumptions:
A simpler explanation often requires fewer new assumptions to be true, making it more likely to be accurate.

A Heuristic, Not a Law:
It's a rule of thumb or a guideline for problem-solving, not a definitive scientific law. It helps in choosing a probable explanation but doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Applications:
The principle is widely used in fields such as science, philosophy, and even daily decision-making to evaluate and select the most logical or straightforward solution.

Example
If you hear hoofbeats outside, the simplest explanation is that a horse is nearby, rather than a more complex scenario involving zebras being ridden by people. Occam's razor suggests we should favor the simpler explanation (a horse) over the one involving gremlins or unseen, more complex forces.

Did or did not the FBI admit to 274 agents at the Capitol?

I don’t know where they were exactly.

Sure, you can claim that conservative conspiracy theorists are wrong more often than not, but the idea that our democratic institutions are so weak that 2500 or so crazed political supporters can overthrow it is equally absurd.

Did the Jan. 6th committee know or ever recognize the FBI presence at the Capitol?
Did they interview any FBI operatives?
Did any defense attorneys request information on any FBI involvement and what was the result if those questions were asked?

These are fair questions which are easily answered.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:
Did the Jan. 6th committee know or ever recognize the FBI presence at the Capitol?
Did they interview any FBI operatives?
Did any defense attorneys request information on any FBI involvement and what was the result if those questions were asked?

These are fair questions which are easily answered.

you want to know the answer of your questions?

https://oig.justice.gov/sites/...s/reports/25-011.pdf

https://justthenews.com/sites/...IG-000001-000050.pdf

Page 46 section IX

Complete denyal of on site FBI involvement


"IX. The FBI Did Not Have Any Undercover Employees at the Ellipse, on the National Mall,
or at the Capitol on January 6.
We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting
that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6.
D’Antuono and the WFO CTD ASAC noted that FBI policy does not permit the FBI to have undercover
employees in crowds at First Amendment-protected events absent some investigative authority, and the
WFO CTD ASAC told the OIG that he denied a request from an FBI office to have an undercover employee
engage in investigative activity on January 6."

So, either the Jan. 6th committee was lying or the FBI lied to the Jan. 6th committee.
Not a good look...

Definitely more to this than we know. The FBI had a mission that day and it wasn’t to protect the Capitol or its inhabitants.

Hopefully the truth will come out.

. . . so I guess you think Kash Patel was lying yesterday? Not that that would surprise me actually since everyone in this Administration seems to have a propensity to . . . fib. So either Trump is lying or Patel is lying. That’s an easy call.