No, but I do think they tried to take advantage of it. And they are still trying, otherwise they would have simply charged the trespassers with trespassing and been done with it.

[–] Dii_Casses 5 points (+5|-0) Edited

Not as such, but I think the moles stray too far into a mindset of "I am tasked to watch criminals that haven't been caught" instead of "I am tasked to find out whether these guys are criminal". Their boss is demanding they have something to show for all the time they've sunk into a surveillance, so eventually they nudge things along into entrapment. If they screw things up... well they have little to no accountability for terrorist-related investigations. They've had 20 years for their diligence, adherence to procedure, and consciences to erode.

[–] F6F_Hellcat 5 points (+5|-0) Edited

That's a tricky question and should be rephrased. Devised? No. Played a part in? Yes. So, I still voted yes.

I think it's very telling how AG Garland responded to two direct questions about Jan. 6 during a Congressional hearing.

  1. he was asked were there any Federal agents present on Jan. 6. - He refused to answer.

  2. He was then asked who is Ray Epps, the man identified in the video encouraging protesters to enter the Capital, and why wasn't he arrested and indicted. Again, Merrick Garland refused to answer.

[–] CDanger 4 points (+4|-0)

Really good answers here already. I'm sure lawyers would love to bicker over the exact word chosen of "planned", "devised", "orchestrated", "encouraged", "complicit", "participated", etc.

Using plain, everyday honest English, they were clearly involved.

[–] Mattvision 3 points (+3|-0)

They knew it was happening. A lot of things lined up leading up to it. Remember Voat? Which we all basically knew was a honeypot at that point? Went down only weeks before.

I had a twitter account that I hadn't touched in over a year by that time, and a tweet from several years ago joking about hanging politicians suddenly gets flagged. A lot of people had similar stories around that time.

I think if they were planning it they wouldn't have put much effort into shutting down discussion about it.

[–] CDanger 1 points (+1|-0)

Can't run a controlled and professional false flag unless you false flag takedown the actual protests /tapsforehead

[–] BustyPetite 3 points (+3|-0)

I believe they were aware of it and there was some bullying to allow it to pass. I'm surprised there were not more armed rioters and that they didn't end up killing several officials. The Secret Service would be hard to defeat and the types who get the job would not be likely to surrender for any reason.

It was pretty obvious they were planning something from the free speech forums and I personally reported a specific threat to the FBI.

[–] CDanger 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

AFAIK, SS only guards POTUS and VP, not the legislative branch. And SS isn't there to fight a battle where they're drastically outnumbered, they're there to keep those people safe. So they evacuate the VP and take the win.

[–] BustyPetite 2 points (+2|-0)

Yeah I think you are right. I think they were after the VP though. Many militias were summoned to me the fact that they were not armed heavily suggests that deep down they knew they were lying about the steal.

[–] CDanger 2 points (+2|-0)

the fact that they were not armed heavily suggests that deep down they knew they were lying about the steal.

Any time you get a large group of people together, I think it's safe to say there will be a wide range of beliefs and motivations among them. Some wanted to cause mayhem. Some were there for a peaceful protest. Some thought it was the literal end of the country. Some just saw a big crowd and followed them in for selfies. I'd guess that the actual violent ones were a very tiny minority, but as it always is, that's all it takes in a big group to shift behavior and the outcome.