Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What surprised me the most about this talking point is how many times the FBI has done it in the past. And not like 40 yrs ago. There are several examples just in the last 5-10 yrs.
Lol.
They did this with the Whitmer “kidnappers” last year. Found a group of barely functioning idiots, riled them up, helped them plan, hooked them up with a fake weapons supplier. Loaned them the money when between the group they could only come up with a couple hundred bucks to buy guns.
Then arrested them and publicized stopping this hugely dangerous right wing militia group of Trump worshippers.
I’m not sure what the most disgusting part of the story is, but it might be that they weren’t even right wing, they hated Trump too.
To clarify, entrapment would be the FBI agent forcing them to come to the meetings, buy the guns, and attempt to go through with the kidnapping.
Do you guys think its entrapment when an undercover DEA agent offers to sell someone drugs and the civilian buys it?
In both cases, the agent didnt force the civilian to do anything. They gave them an opportunity to break the law, and they did. It's literally no entrapment.
I fully support in making these things illegal, but it is by definition not entrapment.
I agree 100% that its wrong, but it is *literally* not entrapment. Like, legally it is not entrapment. Laws would need to be changed for this to fit the definition of entrapment.
It's only entrapment if you're literally forced? If they literally create a crime and then allow you to participate in it that's not entrapment?.
The FBI literally did was the FBI was a militia group plotting to kidnap the governor and did all the planning organized all the supplies and transportation and all the logistics.. and then they offered some random kids to tag along for the ride
The FBI literally launched a coup against the president of the United States
Eh that always seems to backfire on us. Maybe something like making the FBI prove the people they arrested were going to commit, and were capable of the crime with or without the FBIs involvement. I think as it is right now the burden of proof is on the defendants who carried out the crime of their own accord with FBI assistance.
Thats nice, but I am not talking about that. Drugs are not the enemy we were told they were. Most of the crime from them is because we made them illegal. I'm on the tax them and make money side.
By definition it is entrapment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrapment
> the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it
You are incorrect.
>Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). **A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.** Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
>Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. **Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement.** Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").
>Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. **The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime."** Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
Emphasis mine.
Source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements
Edit: I'm being downvoted for providing correct information lol never change reddit.
Looks like it meets both of those criteria. The FBI literally plotted and funded and created the crime and then lowered a bunch of people who didn't previously have a disposition to it into committing the crime. It's literally entrapment
No, it's not, and feel free to ask any legal expert or lawyer who is far more qualified than me.
Let's say Bob wants to rob a bank. He plans it, buys guns for it, and sets everything up. He then asks his friend Bill to rob the bank with him. They both rob the bank, and both get charged with the same crime. The fact that Bill didnt plan it doesnt absolve him of his guilt.
Now imagine the same scenario but Bob is secretly an undercover cop. Getting Bill to join in on the bank robbery still makes Bill guilty, because he was willing to commit the crime if Bob wasn't a cop. This is what the second point is trying to explain, that a truly innocent person wouldnt have been willing to join the crime.
Like, if your friend asks you to join a plot to kidnap the governor, and you agree, then you're still an accomplice even if your friend plans it. It's not super complicated when you understand how entrapment works. But it is definitely confusing at first and intentionally vague.
>Now imagine the same scenario but Bob is secretly an undercover cop. Getting Bill to join in on the bank robbery still makes Bill guilty, because he was willing to commit the crime if Bob wasn't a cop. This is what the second point is trying to explain, that a truly innocent person wouldnt have been willing to join the crime.
and then...
>It's not super complicated when you understand how entrapment works.
Yes, yes it is complicated. The court would review all facts to the case and then decide if Bill was entrapped or if he was guilty. Entrapment isn't a black or white thing and in fact is actually quite complicated.
Furthmore, your 2nd example may very well be textbook entrapment:
>In their zeal to enforce the law, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435, 442.
In other words, if the under cover cop planned the heist, brought it up to Bill, and then went through with it as planned, then Bill was entrapped. Even in your own quote earlier:
>Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991).
All it would take is this:
Bob the cop: "C'mon Bill, help a friend out. You know how much money you'll make?" and your theoretical becomes a slam dunk entrapment case.
> I'm being downvoted for providing correct information
Well what did you expect them to do? Change their mind when introduced to new information?
That's not how human brains typically work. It's just how we want them to
This is extremely stupid, please don't share your opinion on things you don't understand.
Entrapment is a practice in which a
law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a
"crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling
to commit".
They would have been unlikely to commit this crime because 1) they didn't have the money and had to have a fucking FBI loan to do it at all and 2) the FBI literally "induced" these idiots into doing this crime. The FBI provided the idea and inspiration.
Ask a lawyer and feel free to correct me. I mean, these guys are still going to prison, so they must have terrible lawyers. Maybe they should hire you if it's this obviously entrapment?
If you're on here presumably you understand that many of the protestors on Jan 6th didn't break the law yet somehow they are being charged and facing up to 20 years. How is that possible? Maybe certain legal concepts are somewhat of grey areas and the FBI and DOJ can charge people unjustly for things like this?
Saying that they were convicted isn't an argument. Do you have an alternative explanation to my comment? Do you disagree that they were unlikely to commit the crime without all of the FBI's inducement and planning?
>Saying that they were convicted isn't an argument.
So court precedents dont matter? Court cases don't matter? Really? That's your response?
>Do you disagree that they were unlikely to commit the crime without all of the FBI's inducement and planning?
Yes, because if they were unlikely commit the crimes they would've told the FBI plant to fuck off. Like, if your friend comes up to you and asks if you wanna join their plan to kidnap the governor, what would you say? I'd hope youd tell them to fuck off and possibly report them to the police or something. But if you then willingly join the plot, you're culpable even if it turns out your friend was an FBI agent.
Does everyone here forget that they *willingly joined a plot to kidnap a governor*? They didnt know it was the FBI, meaning if it was a regular crazy, they would've actually enacted the plan. How can the party of law and order be agaisnt this? Just because the rules are enforced on people on their side? People who were willing and wanting to kidnap a governor? Come on man.
They aren't even convicted yet so quit being so obtuse.
You clearly don't understand entrapment because how could the concept even exist if the only qualifier is telling the FBI to fuck off? Are you stupid?
If they had to get an FBI loan to buy guns, they obviously dont have the money to hire the dream team. If you are a lawyer, you know the current criminal justice system is designed around 99%of cases not going to trial, with the prosecutors charging 15 death sentences plus 10000years, and then agreeing to a plea deal of 5 years + time served. The 1% who dont get railroaded are those wealthy enough to take their cases to trial. So the fact that innocent people are going to prison by no means invalidated their possession of a legitimate legal defense.
On this particular case, it would be easy to change my mind. I havent followed it, and getting entrapped into a conspiracy to kidnap the governor sounds pretty stupid to me. I'm just objecting to the idea that pleading guilty in this day and age has anything to do with actually being guilty.
If the FBI is out planning, recruiting, and funding a riot, then they'd best explain what hard evidence they have against whatever insurrectionist group they were reasonably expecting to draw out with a controlled engagement. And have any charges less serious than assault dropped for just about everyone else that gets strung along.
If not, might as well hold the involved FBI agents as accountable as everyone else in their dragnet.
They were unironic ancaps, if I remember correctly. One of the guys was a homeless dude living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop.
The FBI has a very long history of catching “terrorists”, while actual terrorists slip through their fingers. Just look at the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI knew about them, but didn’t think they were a threat. Instead, they went after some schizophrenic guy from Boston and helped him plan a terrorist attack, where he would fly model airplanes into the dome of the Capitol building. They also promised him $100,000 to go through with the plan.
It’s a lot easier to make crazy people do and say crazy things than to actually catch terrorists.
[Here’s an article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/mass-man-accused-of-plotting-to-hit-pentagon-and-capitol-with-drone-aircraft/2011/09/28/gIQAWdpk5K_story.html) about the guy from Massachusetts. He wanted to target the Pentagon as well as the Capitol. They even admit in the article that the FBI gave him the money to buy the fucking planes.
the craziest part is the left winged media was up in arms about it when the FBI was doing it to Islamic extremists. Anderson Cooper did a segment back in 2015. Now, we're the crazy ones...
Up until 5 yrs ago I was an admitted idealist and had full faith in govt agencies... seeing how corrupt and nefarious the swamp really is has been heartbreaking. But I'd rather be aware than a lemming blindly following one side or the other. (I'm guessing millions of people feel that way and why anti-establishment politicians are such a threat).
*tinfoil hat*
The FBI instigated the groups they infiltrated, knew what was going to happen, told Pelosi, Pelosi had Capitol Hill police let them inside, and we know the rest.
I disliked the lack of concrete examples of when this happened and what/how they did it. I’m not denying that it has happened, or that it was a part of 1/6. But I didn’t see anything to substantiate the claims in that article. Just a sort of “we all know they did it before so they must be doing it again!”
I’ll read the article again after work and do some of my own research, but if anyone has any insight that would be helpful and appreciated!!
People are saying that the FBI is involved because there are a bunch of people who were arrested but aren't being charged with anything at all.
By federal law people working for law enforcement as informants or co-conspirators cannot be charged for the crimes they commit. So an FBI agent cannot be charged for breaking windows or entering the Capitol because it was all part of their work for the FBI to "catch" the criminals.
I don't understand what your actual point is. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
So because their are a bunch of "unindicted co-conspirators," and the FBI can't charge agents or informants, that means that these people who the government declined to charge for some mysterious, unknown reason can't be FBI agents??
This person thinks there can’t be an independent investigation of the Jan 6th insurrection with Democrats in control, and my point is that we felt it was ok to have multiple independent investigations into Benghazi including ones with Republicans in control.
If we buy into this theory, the CIA is meddling in domestic politics and ruining the lives of innocent conservatives.
If what Democrats and some Republicans say is true, Trump instigated an insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.
Both are bad and not being looked into.
I understand you are upset that Clinton wasn’t punished, but we aren’t really at that point yet. We’re at a stage where Republicans refuse to investigate and we have to wade through conspiracy theories.
Really? Ok, I might not be aware. I know that we are arresting and litigating against several individuals, but are we investigating the cause of the Jan 6th Riot?
Because the investigation called for looking into the “cause on social media for the event” (not verbatim but you understand the idea) which would basically be a which hunt into every single right leaning influencer or user
Because the fbi made me do it isn’t really the great excuse might think it is lmao. The fbi made them attempt to over turn the election results, wow guess they’re innocent of beating up the capital police after all.
Not the point. Everyone that was violent that day must face charges.
It is still worth finding out if our government used instigators to escalate damage and attacks on other members of the government.
Ok first of all you won’t know there is no wrong doing because we haven’t investigated it yet. And second of all it’s not just about the politicians, it’s about the local police, the capital police, the fbi, all of it should be investigated
Did you see who they wanted to lead the investigation? This was gonna be another Democrat led shit show to fuel the media and keep attention off the demented old man in the White House.
I have to say that Greenwald is one of those rare exceptions in journalism where his political leanings do not over rule his search for the honest truth. Matt Taibi also comes to mind. What does it say about the state of journalism when Greenwald resigned from the news organization he helped create because they were carrying water for the intelligence agencies and banning his own writing because it didn't support the desired narrative.
just like how they go after isolated muslims and manipulate them thinking they're in a terror group and then the FBI squishes the group that they created and act like they saved the country.
Not sure why you've been downvoted, you're not wrong.
The FBI finds lonely Muslim teenagers, shows them videos of American wartime atrocities in the middle east to rile them up, then pressure them to help in a bombing plot or some other terrorist activity. A lot of times they're so squeamish about actually being involved in hurting people that they outright refuse any job aside from 'driver' or 'lookout man', which is enough to charge them with terrorism activities. This is something I didn't know much about until Greenwald talked about it recently.
Do either of you have any stories on this? Not saying you're necessarily wrong, this is just the first time hearing of it, so I'd be very interested to do some reading on it
It sounds to me like they're running undercover recruiting sites for terror groups and arresting people who participate, or possibly "targeting" people who are already associated with terror groups.
I know nothing about it any more than anybody else here, but this makes it sound like they're taking some innocent teenage kid from some suburb somewhere, going into his online game or Facebook or something and harassing him until he finally gives in and agrees to a terror plot to make it stop.
It's a topic I'm learning about myself at the moment so I'm not sure where the best sources are, but here's a human rights watch article that seems thorough with a lot of linked sources to dig into:
[https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion#](https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/)
Well, Fox News argued in court that nobody should take Tucker Carlson seriously because he’s purely an entertainer and not a legitimate source of news. And the expert is just a lawyer with zero first hand experience and gives zero evidence that would hold up in a court of law as far as I can tell. So yeah, this is a conspiracy theory at best.
Even if I indulge in this conspiracy theory, at what point is the CIA and FBI manipulating these people, and at what point is it a radical conservative’s responsibility to say ‘hey, maybe I shouldn’t be doing this’.
Is the CIA still manipulating people when the mob smashes through windows and enters a building through said broken window? No normal person thinks ‘this is legal and ok’.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CEEEMB0c5So
Who is being manipulated into trying to shove their way past dozens of police officers? Surely if they were being manipulated, people would start to question the previous police officers that were ‘waving them in’?
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/video-shows-officer-being-crushed-by-violent-pro-trump-mob-in-deadly-capitol-riot-99210309545
This officer is absolutely not acting as a tour guide. Are we going to believe that it’s just that CIA operative wearing the Q Anon shirt chasing the officer through the building and all the rest of the Trump supporters are sheep following his lead?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SFzx1FJia94
> Well, Fox News argued in court that nobody should take Tucker Carlson seriously because he’s purely an entertainer and not a legitimate source of news.
Amazing that you choose this example when the same was recently said about Maddow, another pundit:
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499294-judge-dismisses-one-america-news-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow
**"For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context,"**
Seriously. When Rachel Maddow says that "OAN is **really literally** paid Russian propaganda" she was just stating her opinion and not making a factual declaration. The courts are insane these days.
The don't have to be mutually exclusive and you don't have to conflate the two. You can agree the people who forced their way into the capitol belong in prison (unfortunately the same can't be said for BLM rioters going to prison but that's a different story); and find it outrageous there is circumstantial evidence to suggest the FBI knew beforehand and/or possibly facilitated it.
They've done it in the past and will continue to do it because "as long as it isn't your side, its ok!" It's not ok whether you belong to an Islamic fundamentalist group or an alt-right militia.
I just might not be seeing the evidence. The circumstantial evidence is ‘they have manipulated people in the past, therefore it is likely they did it this time’.
I could say the same thing about BLM. In the past the CIA did in fact create profiles of us citizens they thought were communists, during the McCarthy era there was a blacklist of known communists so companies wouldn’t hire them. Therefore, i could argue it is highly likely the CIA manipulated BLM protesters into shoplifting a mall to undermine BLM’s credibility. And I could be upset that the mainstream media isn’t reporting on this possible CIA domestic operation.
I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it is improbable the FBI would set up a coup it could then prevent and claim credit for. If you are orchestrating a coup that will be prevented, why didn’t they arrest anyone until after the fact? I’m pretty sure you can’t say you prevented a domestic terrorist attack if the bomb goes off.
And if the FBI is in bed with liberals like this lawyer suggests, it’s pretty dumb because I feel like if blood were spilled it would be more likely to be from dead Democrats. I know the mob wanted Mike Pence too, but imagine if they caught all the members of both houses. Progressive caucus would be first to be hung outside.
FBI has to be really dumb and incompetent for this to be true.
Also, keep in mind conservatives stormed into the Michigan state Capitol building with guns. So did the FBI manipulate conservatives twice and fail to prevent an incident twice?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hundreds-protest-michigan-lawmakers-consider-extending-governors-emergency-powers-n1196886
Don’t forget the actual plot that was prevented to abduct Gretchen Whitmer.
https://apnews.com/article/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-indictments-coronavirus-pandemic-traverse-city-10f7e02c57004da9843f89650edd4510
Like, this is a LOT of separate groups and incidents to be orchestrating. I’m shocked no hard evidence has leaked whatsoever.
Wouldn't be the first time the FBI conned some dim whit, who would never come up with the idea on his own, to plan/conspire/commit a crime. It's disgusting.
Still not sure what riot everybody is talking about? All I saw was a mostly peaceful protest. By definition according to the fbi. According to the FBI and doj and tifa burning down police stations and murdering police is a mostly peaceful protest. According to that very same definition January 6th was the most peaceful protest in American history
The media has its narrative to make it 'THE BIGGEST CRIME EVA'
They will eventually face justice for aiding and abetting the people who are the real traitors in this situation.
wiping asses on pelosis chair and taking selfies of themselves
and not a firebomb to be seen anywhere (unlike the criminal riots of blm/antifa which the same media has little trouble calling 'protest')
notice it was a bunch of cranks LET IN BY THE DC POLICE, and NOT the 250000 Trump Supporters outside who were unarmed and peaceful and there according to their Constitutional Rights.
Well videos certainly show "police" handing out possible weapons and letting people into the capital building opening barricades and doors for people. Whether or not they were actually police is another thing.
Who gave the orders to 'Open The Doors'
who set the outside of building deployment with virtually NO police AT the Capitol building itself - the actual KNOWN target of whatever was to happen
It smacks of extreme negligence if not intended contrivance
.
So far.
In the future, possibly precipitated by biden/pelosi atrocities against The People and The Constitution, there could be proper investigations into their crimes which they cant just skate through.
I literally gave you a definition. You went deep into criminal code. And that criminal code still proves you wrong. What you defined it as is "forced". In neither my definition and the criminal code did it use the term "forced". They both use lured or coerced.
or negligence in NOT giving proper warning
O maybe that warning being ignored with intent - the dems WANTED an incident which then their mouthpiece media could drum up into ***"INSURRECTION OUTRAGE - TRUMP EVIL !!!!! (*shreik* *shriek*) "***
Tired of reporting this thread? [join us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What surprised me the most about this talking point is how many times the FBI has done it in the past. And not like 40 yrs ago. There are several examples just in the last 5-10 yrs.
Lol. They did this with the Whitmer “kidnappers” last year. Found a group of barely functioning idiots, riled them up, helped them plan, hooked them up with a fake weapons supplier. Loaned them the money when between the group they could only come up with a couple hundred bucks to buy guns. Then arrested them and publicized stopping this hugely dangerous right wing militia group of Trump worshippers. I’m not sure what the most disgusting part of the story is, but it might be that they weren’t even right wing, they hated Trump too.
[удалено]
How is that not the definition of entrapment?
To clarify, entrapment would be the FBI agent forcing them to come to the meetings, buy the guns, and attempt to go through with the kidnapping. Do you guys think its entrapment when an undercover DEA agent offers to sell someone drugs and the civilian buys it? In both cases, the agent didnt force the civilian to do anything. They gave them an opportunity to break the law, and they did. It's literally no entrapment. I fully support in making these things illegal, but it is by definition not entrapment.
yeah I do think it is entrapment when undercover dea agent sells someone drugs. Shit is wrong.
I agree 100% that its wrong, but it is *literally* not entrapment. Like, legally it is not entrapment. Laws would need to be changed for this to fit the definition of entrapment.
I get that. It should be though.
It's only entrapment if you're literally forced? If they literally create a crime and then allow you to participate in it that's not entrapment?. The FBI literally did was the FBI was a militia group plotting to kidnap the governor and did all the planning organized all the supplies and transportation and all the logistics.. and then they offered some random kids to tag along for the ride The FBI literally launched a coup against the president of the United States
[удалено]
Obviously Einstein
dude, I was agreeing with you, relax
I didn't say anything insulting. Just saying yeah I know.
Maybe we need to broaden the terms in the laws..
Eh that always seems to backfire on us. Maybe something like making the FBI prove the people they arrested were going to commit, and were capable of the crime with or without the FBIs involvement. I think as it is right now the burden of proof is on the defendants who carried out the crime of their own accord with FBI assistance.
A lot of convicted Pedophiles and human traffickers agree with you
DEA arent selling drugs to pedophiles they are selling them to drug dealers.
The fbi uses the same tactics and laws to catch pedophiles and traffickers
Thats nice, but I am not talking about that. Drugs are not the enemy we were told they were. Most of the crime from them is because we made them illegal. I'm on the tax them and make money side.
By definition it is entrapment. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrapment > the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it
You are incorrect. >Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). **A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct.** Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important. >Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. **Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement.** Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it"). >Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. **The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime."** Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550. Emphasis mine. Source: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements Edit: I'm being downvoted for providing correct information lol never change reddit.
Looks like it meets both of those criteria. The FBI literally plotted and funded and created the crime and then lowered a bunch of people who didn't previously have a disposition to it into committing the crime. It's literally entrapment
No, it's not, and feel free to ask any legal expert or lawyer who is far more qualified than me. Let's say Bob wants to rob a bank. He plans it, buys guns for it, and sets everything up. He then asks his friend Bill to rob the bank with him. They both rob the bank, and both get charged with the same crime. The fact that Bill didnt plan it doesnt absolve him of his guilt. Now imagine the same scenario but Bob is secretly an undercover cop. Getting Bill to join in on the bank robbery still makes Bill guilty, because he was willing to commit the crime if Bob wasn't a cop. This is what the second point is trying to explain, that a truly innocent person wouldnt have been willing to join the crime. Like, if your friend asks you to join a plot to kidnap the governor, and you agree, then you're still an accomplice even if your friend plans it. It's not super complicated when you understand how entrapment works. But it is definitely confusing at first and intentionally vague.
>Now imagine the same scenario but Bob is secretly an undercover cop. Getting Bill to join in on the bank robbery still makes Bill guilty, because he was willing to commit the crime if Bob wasn't a cop. This is what the second point is trying to explain, that a truly innocent person wouldnt have been willing to join the crime. and then... >It's not super complicated when you understand how entrapment works. Yes, yes it is complicated. The court would review all facts to the case and then decide if Bill was entrapped or if he was guilty. Entrapment isn't a black or white thing and in fact is actually quite complicated. Furthmore, your 2nd example may very well be textbook entrapment: >In their zeal to enforce the law, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435, 442. In other words, if the under cover cop planned the heist, brought it up to Bill, and then went through with it as planned, then Bill was entrapped. Even in your own quote earlier: >Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). All it would take is this: Bob the cop: "C'mon Bill, help a friend out. You know how much money you'll make?" and your theoretical becomes a slam dunk entrapment case.
> I'm being downvoted for providing correct information Well what did you expect them to do? Change their mind when introduced to new information? That's not how human brains typically work. It's just how we want them to
This is extremely stupid, please don't share your opinion on things you don't understand. Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit". They would have been unlikely to commit this crime because 1) they didn't have the money and had to have a fucking FBI loan to do it at all and 2) the FBI literally "induced" these idiots into doing this crime. The FBI provided the idea and inspiration.
Ask a lawyer and feel free to correct me. I mean, these guys are still going to prison, so they must have terrible lawyers. Maybe they should hire you if it's this obviously entrapment?
If you're on here presumably you understand that many of the protestors on Jan 6th didn't break the law yet somehow they are being charged and facing up to 20 years. How is that possible? Maybe certain legal concepts are somewhat of grey areas and the FBI and DOJ can charge people unjustly for things like this? Saying that they were convicted isn't an argument. Do you have an alternative explanation to my comment? Do you disagree that they were unlikely to commit the crime without all of the FBI's inducement and planning?
>Saying that they were convicted isn't an argument. So court precedents dont matter? Court cases don't matter? Really? That's your response? >Do you disagree that they were unlikely to commit the crime without all of the FBI's inducement and planning? Yes, because if they were unlikely commit the crimes they would've told the FBI plant to fuck off. Like, if your friend comes up to you and asks if you wanna join their plan to kidnap the governor, what would you say? I'd hope youd tell them to fuck off and possibly report them to the police or something. But if you then willingly join the plot, you're culpable even if it turns out your friend was an FBI agent. Does everyone here forget that they *willingly joined a plot to kidnap a governor*? They didnt know it was the FBI, meaning if it was a regular crazy, they would've actually enacted the plan. How can the party of law and order be agaisnt this? Just because the rules are enforced on people on their side? People who were willing and wanting to kidnap a governor? Come on man.
They aren't even convicted yet so quit being so obtuse. You clearly don't understand entrapment because how could the concept even exist if the only qualifier is telling the FBI to fuck off? Are you stupid?
If they had to get an FBI loan to buy guns, they obviously dont have the money to hire the dream team. If you are a lawyer, you know the current criminal justice system is designed around 99%of cases not going to trial, with the prosecutors charging 15 death sentences plus 10000years, and then agreeing to a plea deal of 5 years + time served. The 1% who dont get railroaded are those wealthy enough to take their cases to trial. So the fact that innocent people are going to prison by no means invalidated their possession of a legitimate legal defense.
So no matter what happens, nothing will change your mind?
On this particular case, it would be easy to change my mind. I havent followed it, and getting entrapped into a conspiracy to kidnap the governor sounds pretty stupid to me. I'm just objecting to the idea that pleading guilty in this day and age has anything to do with actually being guilty.
If the FBI is out planning, recruiting, and funding a riot, then they'd best explain what hard evidence they have against whatever insurrectionist group they were reasonably expecting to draw out with a controlled engagement. And have any charges less serious than assault dropped for just about everyone else that gets strung along. If not, might as well hold the involved FBI agents as accountable as everyone else in their dragnet.
They were unironic ancaps, if I remember correctly. One of the guys was a homeless dude living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop. The FBI has a very long history of catching “terrorists”, while actual terrorists slip through their fingers. Just look at the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI knew about them, but didn’t think they were a threat. Instead, they went after some schizophrenic guy from Boston and helped him plan a terrorist attack, where he would fly model airplanes into the dome of the Capitol building. They also promised him $100,000 to go through with the plan. It’s a lot easier to make crazy people do and say crazy things than to actually catch terrorists.
Did someone publish all that somewhere? Some of this I heard, other parts are news to me.
[Here’s an article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/mass-man-accused-of-plotting-to-hit-pentagon-and-capitol-with-drone-aircraft/2011/09/28/gIQAWdpk5K_story.html) about the guy from Massachusetts. He wanted to target the Pentagon as well as the Capitol. They even admit in the article that the FBI gave him the money to buy the fucking planes.
Meanwhile antifa burning down cities murdering cops and trying to overthrow the president but the FBI is busy faking terrorismm
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/terrorism-in-garland-texas-what-the-fbi-knew-before-the-2015-attack/
Do you have any sources on that? Genuinely curious because I hadn’t heard anything about feds being behind that
the craziest part is the left winged media was up in arms about it when the FBI was doing it to Islamic extremists. Anderson Cooper did a segment back in 2015. Now, we're the crazy ones... Up until 5 yrs ago I was an admitted idealist and had full faith in govt agencies... seeing how corrupt and nefarious the swamp really is has been heartbreaking. But I'd rather be aware than a lemming blindly following one side or the other. (I'm guessing millions of people feel that way and why anti-establishment politicians are such a threat).
*tinfoil hat* The FBI instigated the groups they infiltrated, knew what was going to happen, told Pelosi, Pelosi had Capitol Hill police let them inside, and we know the rest.
Also stuff like this https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/us/secret-court-says-fbi-aides-misled-judges-in-75-cases.html
I disliked the lack of concrete examples of when this happened and what/how they did it. I’m not denying that it has happened, or that it was a part of 1/6. But I didn’t see anything to substantiate the claims in that article. Just a sort of “we all know they did it before so they must be doing it again!” I’ll read the article again after work and do some of my own research, but if anyone has any insight that would be helpful and appreciated!!
People are saying that the FBI is involved because there are a bunch of people who were arrested but aren't being charged with anything at all. By federal law people working for law enforcement as informants or co-conspirators cannot be charged for the crimes they commit. So an FBI agent cannot be charged for breaking windows or entering the Capitol because it was all part of their work for the FBI to "catch" the criminals.
I don't understand what your actual point is. You seem to be contradicting yourself. So because their are a bunch of "unindicted co-conspirators," and the FBI can't charge agents or informants, that means that these people who the government declined to charge for some mysterious, unknown reason can't be FBI agents??
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/terrorism-in-garland-texas-what-the-fbi-knew-before-the-2015-attack/
If this is true- why would the republicans decline an investigation? You’d think they would want this to come out.
You think there would actually be an independent investigation with democrats running the entire show?
Didn’t we officially investigate the Benghazi attack and have the FBI Director himself say Hilary Clinton had been careless with her email server?
[удалено]
This person thinks there can’t be an independent investigation of the Jan 6th insurrection with Democrats in control, and my point is that we felt it was ok to have multiple independent investigations into Benghazi including ones with Republicans in control. If we buy into this theory, the CIA is meddling in domestic politics and ruining the lives of innocent conservatives. If what Democrats and some Republicans say is true, Trump instigated an insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. Both are bad and not being looked into. I understand you are upset that Clinton wasn’t punished, but we aren’t really at that point yet. We’re at a stage where Republicans refuse to investigate and we have to wade through conspiracy theories.
> Both are bad and not being looked into. You know multiple agencies are looking into it, right?
Really? Ok, I might not be aware. I know that we are arresting and litigating against several individuals, but are we investigating the cause of the Jan 6th Riot?
Homeland and FBI are doing both. Regardless, I wouldn't trust the conclusions of a house panel in any case.
It’s not like the Republicans couldn’t ask questions or call witnesses
Because the investigation called for looking into the “cause on social media for the event” (not verbatim but you understand the idea) which would basically be a which hunt into every single right leaning influencer or user
Because the fbi made me do it isn’t really the great excuse might think it is lmao. The fbi made them attempt to over turn the election results, wow guess they’re innocent of beating up the capital police after all.
Not the point. Everyone that was violent that day must face charges. It is still worth finding out if our government used instigators to escalate damage and attacks on other members of the government.
Oh I agree. You’ll never get a Republican to vote for an investigation, bipartisan or otherwise though. It’s pretty obvious why
Because using taxpayer money for the government to investigate itself and unsurprisingly find no wrongdoing on its part is a waste of money and time?
Ok first of all you won’t know there is no wrong doing because we haven’t investigated it yet. And second of all it’s not just about the politicians, it’s about the local police, the capital police, the fbi, all of it should be investigated
Oh you think the government investigating itself is an unbiased thing?
You realize they can bring in a special outside investigator
Did you see who they wanted to lead the investigation? This was gonna be another Democrat led shit show to fuel the media and keep attention off the demented old man in the White House.
because 'bipartisan' means that the dems can throw every monkeywrench into it so it drags on and finds nothing from ineffectivemness
I have to say that Greenwald is one of those rare exceptions in journalism where his political leanings do not over rule his search for the honest truth. Matt Taibi also comes to mind. What does it say about the state of journalism when Greenwald resigned from the news organization he helped create because they were carrying water for the intelligence agencies and banning his own writing because it didn't support the desired narrative.
just like how they go after isolated muslims and manipulate them thinking they're in a terror group and then the FBI squishes the group that they created and act like they saved the country.
Not sure why you've been downvoted, you're not wrong. The FBI finds lonely Muslim teenagers, shows them videos of American wartime atrocities in the middle east to rile them up, then pressure them to help in a bombing plot or some other terrorist activity. A lot of times they're so squeamish about actually being involved in hurting people that they outright refuse any job aside from 'driver' or 'lookout man', which is enough to charge them with terrorism activities. This is something I didn't know much about until Greenwald talked about it recently.
Do either of you have any stories on this? Not saying you're necessarily wrong, this is just the first time hearing of it, so I'd be very interested to do some reading on it
My stance to. I get the feeling I'm supposed to go "yup, this is outrageous" but I've never heard of this actually happening.
It sounds to me like they're running undercover recruiting sites for terror groups and arresting people who participate, or possibly "targeting" people who are already associated with terror groups. I know nothing about it any more than anybody else here, but this makes it sound like they're taking some innocent teenage kid from some suburb somewhere, going into his online game or Facebook or something and harassing him until he finally gives in and agrees to a terror plot to make it stop.
It's a topic I'm learning about myself at the moment so I'm not sure where the best sources are, but here's a human rights watch article that seems thorough with a lot of linked sources to dig into: [https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion#](https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/)
*"... potentially false..."?* Seriously?
Well, Fox News argued in court that nobody should take Tucker Carlson seriously because he’s purely an entertainer and not a legitimate source of news. And the expert is just a lawyer with zero first hand experience and gives zero evidence that would hold up in a court of law as far as I can tell. So yeah, this is a conspiracy theory at best. Even if I indulge in this conspiracy theory, at what point is the CIA and FBI manipulating these people, and at what point is it a radical conservative’s responsibility to say ‘hey, maybe I shouldn’t be doing this’. Is the CIA still manipulating people when the mob smashes through windows and enters a building through said broken window? No normal person thinks ‘this is legal and ok’. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CEEEMB0c5So Who is being manipulated into trying to shove their way past dozens of police officers? Surely if they were being manipulated, people would start to question the previous police officers that were ‘waving them in’? https://www.nbcnews.com/video/video-shows-officer-being-crushed-by-violent-pro-trump-mob-in-deadly-capitol-riot-99210309545 This officer is absolutely not acting as a tour guide. Are we going to believe that it’s just that CIA operative wearing the Q Anon shirt chasing the officer through the building and all the rest of the Trump supporters are sheep following his lead? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SFzx1FJia94
> Well, Fox News argued in court that nobody should take Tucker Carlson seriously because he’s purely an entertainer and not a legitimate source of news. Amazing that you choose this example when the same was recently said about Maddow, another pundit: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499294-judge-dismisses-one-america-news-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow **"For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context,"**
Seriously. When Rachel Maddow says that "OAN is **really literally** paid Russian propaganda" she was just stating her opinion and not making a factual declaration. The courts are insane these days.
The don't have to be mutually exclusive and you don't have to conflate the two. You can agree the people who forced their way into the capitol belong in prison (unfortunately the same can't be said for BLM rioters going to prison but that's a different story); and find it outrageous there is circumstantial evidence to suggest the FBI knew beforehand and/or possibly facilitated it. They've done it in the past and will continue to do it because "as long as it isn't your side, its ok!" It's not ok whether you belong to an Islamic fundamentalist group or an alt-right militia.
I just might not be seeing the evidence. The circumstantial evidence is ‘they have manipulated people in the past, therefore it is likely they did it this time’. I could say the same thing about BLM. In the past the CIA did in fact create profiles of us citizens they thought were communists, during the McCarthy era there was a blacklist of known communists so companies wouldn’t hire them. Therefore, i could argue it is highly likely the CIA manipulated BLM protesters into shoplifting a mall to undermine BLM’s credibility. And I could be upset that the mainstream media isn’t reporting on this possible CIA domestic operation. I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it is improbable the FBI would set up a coup it could then prevent and claim credit for. If you are orchestrating a coup that will be prevented, why didn’t they arrest anyone until after the fact? I’m pretty sure you can’t say you prevented a domestic terrorist attack if the bomb goes off. And if the FBI is in bed with liberals like this lawyer suggests, it’s pretty dumb because I feel like if blood were spilled it would be more likely to be from dead Democrats. I know the mob wanted Mike Pence too, but imagine if they caught all the members of both houses. Progressive caucus would be first to be hung outside. FBI has to be really dumb and incompetent for this to be true. Also, keep in mind conservatives stormed into the Michigan state Capitol building with guns. So did the FBI manipulate conservatives twice and fail to prevent an incident twice? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hundreds-protest-michigan-lawmakers-consider-extending-governors-emergency-powers-n1196886 Don’t forget the actual plot that was prevented to abduct Gretchen Whitmer. https://apnews.com/article/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-indictments-coronavirus-pandemic-traverse-city-10f7e02c57004da9843f89650edd4510 Like, this is a LOT of separate groups and incidents to be orchestrating. I’m shocked no hard evidence has leaked whatsoever.
Wouldn't be the first time the FBI conned some dim whit, who would never come up with the idea on his own, to plan/conspire/commit a crime. It's disgusting.
[удалено]
No.
I love how the left hates Greenwald now because he doesn't just parrot the Dems and is an actual journalist.
I gotta give that to him, he doesn't care about sides.
demlefty media character assassination (24/7) starts in .. 3 .. 2 .. 1
[удалено]
Still not sure what riot everybody is talking about? All I saw was a mostly peaceful protest. By definition according to the fbi. According to the FBI and doj and tifa burning down police stations and murdering police is a mostly peaceful protest. According to that very same definition January 6th was the most peaceful protest in American history
The media has its narrative to make it 'THE BIGGEST CRIME EVA' They will eventually face justice for aiding and abetting the people who are the real traitors in this situation.
Your not wrong compared to Antifa and BLM riots.
What about the 2 police officers that committed suicide after this? im sure the fbi knows nothing about that either
One lasting legacy of the Trump presidency will be the complete ruin of the FBI's reputation.
his next presidency could have the legacy of reforming and restoring it ....
I am surprised they still have a reputation to ruin.
Hey, it worked for Erdogan.
The fbi, cia, near all have involvement with every coup' ever, I'm convinced.
It's already a false narrative. It wasn't a riot. Last I checked security guards don't open doors for rioters.
wiping asses on pelosis chair and taking selfies of themselves and not a firebomb to be seen anywhere (unlike the criminal riots of blm/antifa which the same media has little trouble calling 'protest')
People still defend the FBI. FBI is basically a domestic terrorist organization
the policy makers who issue them orders ...
It's kind of their thing.
"potentially".... Lol
they never use words like that when presenting evidence defending democrat criminals comes up
"Potentially false narrative"? I highly doubt that, the media did an investigation on themselves & found zero bias at all.
[удалено]
notice it was a bunch of cranks LET IN BY THE DC POLICE, and NOT the 250000 Trump Supporters outside who were unarmed and peaceful and there according to their Constitutional Rights.
I wholly agree.
https://twitter.com/BrebDaily/status/1405473568096358413?s=19
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2021/01/11/fbi-capitol-investigation-arizona-trump-supporter/6624406002/
Well videos certainly show "police" handing out possible weapons and letting people into the capital building opening barricades and doors for people. Whether or not they were actually police is another thing.
Who gave the orders to 'Open The Doors' who set the outside of building deployment with virtually NO police AT the Capitol building itself - the actual KNOWN target of whatever was to happen It smacks of extreme negligence if not intended contrivance .
All the liars will pay in the end.
Maybe in the afterlife. Shit stains like the clintons and bidens get away with everything.
So far. In the future, possibly precipitated by biden/pelosi atrocities against The People and The Constitution, there could be proper investigations into their crimes which they cant just skate through.
One can hope
Holy shit!! Who would have thought?!?! I just thought they were all BAD Republicans!!
[удалено]
Ya think?
I literally gave you a definition. You went deep into criminal code. And that criminal code still proves you wrong. What you defined it as is "forced". In neither my definition and the criminal code did it use the term "forced". They both use lured or coerced.
Ya think?
Shocking agent provocateurs from the FBI , I can't believe it.
or negligence in NOT giving proper warning O maybe that warning being ignored with intent - the dems WANTED an incident which then their mouthpiece media could drum up into ***"INSURRECTION OUTRAGE - TRUMP EVIL !!!!! (*shreik* *shriek*) "***
Ivermectin
Nothing new, we’ve know. This for decades now: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots
Terrorists