"Lara Logan: Judges Aren't Allowing Defense Attorneys To Even Broach The Issue Of Entrapment In January 6 Cases" - Upgoat

"Lara Logan: Judges Aren't Allowing Defense Attorneys To Even Broach The Issue Of Entrapment In January 6 Cases"
submitted by beece to USPolitics 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 11:17:30 ago (+33/-1) (www.realclearpolitics.com)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/10/20/lara_logan_judges_arent_allowing_defense_attorneys_to_even_broach_the_issue_of_entrapment_in_january_6_cases.html

"Right now that is unknowable for us because that information is being withheld. The FBI was forced to acknowledge during the Proud Boys trial that they sent 30 or 40 agents undercover on the ground. We know from the FBI whistleblowers that there were a lot of FBI on the ground supporting Donald Trump and they've been encouraged to lie about why they were there.

We know from the FBI inspector general's report that they lost control of how many agents were on the ground because there were so many. What we also know is it wasn't just the FBI who had undercover agents.

There were people there from the Department of Homeland Security, there were people there from the joint terrorism task force, there were agents there from the [DC] Metropolitan Police Department special narcotics unit. What we don't know is what these undercover agents were doing. They want to have it both ways, right? They want to say that there was no reason for us to secure the Capitol with National Guard troops, but there was enough intelligence suggesting that there was this great existential threat to the United States posed by Trump supporters, so much so that we had to have untold numbers of undercover agents on the ground. And that's before we even start talking about their confidential human sources or informants. There are indications that the number of informants dwarfed the number of undercover agents. "

17 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] i_scream_trucks 3 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 15:19:02 ago (+3/-0)

Because they weren't there to support Trump they were there to incite violence and create the 'insurrection" optic where there wasn't one.

[ - ] BulletStopper 0 points 6 monthsOct 24, 2023 01:28:12 ago (+0/-0)

Remember the "pipe bombs in the capitol" that they suddenly lost any interest at all in investigating?

Because that was "Plan B", just in case they threw an "insurrection" and nobody showed up for it.

Remember that the whole point of the entire exercise was to create an artificial "emergency" that would disrupt the regular rules of order and prevent the republicans in congress from raising the issue of voter fraud during the election certification proceedings in regular session.

And never ever forget that the thrice cursed, never-sufficiently-to-be-damned, bastard faggot Mike-fucking-Pence (spit) was in on it the whole time.

[ - ] SithEmpire 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 02:45:32 ago (+0/-0)

Unknowable?

Stupid/corrupt judge, that means the prosecution is screwed due to being unable to prove it was not entrapment.

[ - ] Clubberlang 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 21:23:39 ago (+0/-0)

Gotta cover up the crimes the agency committed by order of the 👃

[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 20:09:55 ago (+0/-0)

The fix is in

[ - ] mikenigger -5 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 11:23:46 ago (+1/-6)

just because your larp group is infiltrated doesn't mean you can pull the entrapment card

They want to say that there was no reason for us to secure the Capitol with National Guard troops

that was your orange man's decision

[ + ] BoozyB

[ - ] BoozyB 2 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 13:09:29 ago (+2/-0)

Umm, the Capitol was Auntie Nancy's domain.

[ + ] mikenigger

[ - ] mikenigger -5 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 14:11:29 ago (+0/-5)

typical blame shifting from the mango mussolini crowd

They want to say that there was no reason for us to secure the Capitol with National Guard troops

citation needed

[ + ] i_scream_trucks

[ - ] i_scream_trucks 4 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 15:20:07 ago (+4/-0)

Your girl Nancy telling DC police and the NG we don't need you.

Commie.

[ + ] Clubberlang

[ - ] Clubberlang 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 21:24:29 ago (+0/-0)

People will do what they do

[ + ] chrimony

[ - ] chrimony 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 19:54:09 ago (+0/-0)

It's so funny that you turned into a libschit. I hate the orange clown for his disloyalty, buffoonery, and all around incompetence, but I don't repeat libschit propaganda.

[ + ] mikenigger

[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 22:52:38 ago (+0/-0)

this is how republicucks operate, "believe what i'm saying without proof or you're a libshit"

[ + ] chrimony

[ - ] chrimony 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 23:05:27 ago (+0/-0)

this is how republicucks operate, "believe what i'm saying without proof or you're a libshit"

You're the one repeating Democrat propaganda without any proof. That makes you a libschit. As for the proof against your propaganda:

https://search.brave.com/search?q=who+responsible+security+capital+building

From there, using a libschit source that would be most favorable to your libschit propaganda:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/25/facebook-posts/no-capitol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/

• Capitol security is not solely the responsibility of the House speaker. It is provided by the sergeants-at-arms of the House and Senate, and by the Capitol Police.

• The House sergeant-at-arms reports to the House speaker, or Pelosi at the time of the attack. The Senate sergeant-at-arms reports to the Senate majority leader — on Jan. 6, Sen. Mitch McConnell.

• News reports indicate that in the days before the attack, House sergeant-at-arms Paul Irving resisted calls from the Capitol Police to bring in the National Guard for extra security at the Capitol because of “optics.” Irving later testified that intelligence reports didn’t show the need for the extra security, not that he rejected it because of optics.

No mention of Trump bearing responsibility. Acknowledges Pelosi was in the chain of command for House security.

So back to my original point: It's so funny that you turned into a libschit, "mikenigger".

[ + ] mikenigger

[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 23:38:06 ago (+0/-0)*

Paul Irving resisted calls from the Capitol Police to bring in the National Guard for extra security at the Capitol

who would have guessed, a republitard decided it wasn't necessary

keep splitting hairs republicucks

＞ haha DEMOCRAPS could have prevented this if they knew ahead of time what orange man was gonna do, checkmate libshits

retard.

[ + ] chrimony

[ - ] chrimony 0 points 6 monthsOct 22, 2023 23:58:54 ago (+0/-0)

Libschit ignores who Paul Irving reported to: Nancy Pelosi.

It's so funny that you turned into a libschit, "mikenigger".

[ + ] mikenigger

[ - ] mikenigger 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 01:17:17 ago (+0/-0)

it was paul irving's job to interpret the intelligence and make a recommendation to pelosi

braindead republicuck, blocked.

[ + ] chrimony

[ - ] chrimony 0 points 6 monthsOct 23, 2023 02:31:05 ago (+0/-0)

it was paul irving's job to interpret the intelligence and make a recommendation to pelosi

So it went from, it was "orange man's decision", to Nancy passing the buck to some underling. Ok, libschit.

braindead republicuck, blocked.

Lulz, just like a libschit faggot, "mikenigger".

Sign into an existing account