7 ms·

A bunch of guys from the governor kidnaping plot get acquitted because it turned out the majority of the plotters were paid FBI informants. If the FBI could ju

A bunch of guys from the governor kidnaping plot get acquitted because it turned out the majority of the plotters were paid FBI informants. If the FBI could just increase the % of paid informants little bit they could close the loop and never have to worry about a shortage of plots to foil again!

whateveracct 4y ago
"A bunch" .. wasn't it like 2 who were acquitted? Plenty of other people (most of the bunch I think?) were also rightfully found guilty of crimes associated with plotting to kidnap a governor.
- yucky 4y ago
  I believe two were acquitted due to clear entrapment by the FBI, two more plead guilty before it came out that their group had been entrapped by the FBI (oops), and then two more were actually convicted despite the entrapment of the group, since they were considered culpable enough. Meanwhile there were somewhere between 5 (all the FBI has admitted to) and 12 (based on testimony of those charged) people involved who were known FBI informants. So even if we split the difference, most of the people involved appear to have actually been FBI informants. Meanwhile, Americans are still not allowed to hear why Ray Epps has never been charged as a primary instigator of January 6th.
  - sterlind 4y ago
    entrapment is a very narrow defense. see this handy comic for an explanation of entrapment: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 basically, it's only entrapment if the informants put some kind of unreasonable pressure on you to make you break the law, something that would tempt any reasonable person.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      >it's only entrapment if the informants put some kind of unreasonable pressure on you to make you break the law, something that would tempt any reasonable person. Like having a female informant sleep with you and ply you with drugs to get you to make statements that are later used to prosecute you? Let's remember no kidnapping took place here. These men were prosecuted for allegedly conspiring in a plot (that was never carried out), which was cooked up by informants and FBI agents. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/whitmer-kidnap-trial-fbi-informant-slept-room-suspect https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/whitmer-kidn...
      - whateveracct 4y ago
        Your comment has a lot of innuendo: > sleep with you There is no allegation or proof the agent had a sexual relationship with the defendant > ply you with drugs The agent in question smoked weed with the defendant. Your use of "drugs" here is innuendo for sure. And there's nothing saying the agent either "plied" the defendant with said weed (is it so unbelievable for the defendant to smoke weed in Michigan?) and definitely nothing proving that the agent drugged the defendant to get them to incriminate himself. Also keep in mind a few more things: 1. Multiple people were charged for plotting to kidnap the governor. That's a fact. You obviously believe that it was a complete FBI false flag or something of that sort? But that's conspiracy theory as it stands. 2. Plotting to kidnap a governor is a serious crime! Your comment tries to diminish that. But that is an act of domestic terrorism and embedding FBI agents in said groups trying to do such a plot is not untoward. That's their job. 3. Your source is the Washington Examiner (heavily conservative leaning is a nice way to describe it), and the content is only statements by the defendant with the weakest corroboration by the FBI. A grain of salt is needed for sure.
        yucky 4y ago
        > Multiple people were charged for plotting to kidnap the governor. That's a fact. You obviously believe that it was a complete FBI false flag or something of that sort? But that's conspiracy theory as it stands. FYI, the majority of the people involved in the plot were actually FBI informants. That's not a conspiracy, and it's part of the reason the case was so bungled.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    > since they were considered culpable enough. Or because (at least in one case, not sure about the other) their original trial ended in a mistrial and in the second, the judge disallowed a lot of the entrapment evidence. That could have something to do with the different outcome. But of course this is just an idea and we will never know.
- t-3 4y ago
  Pedantic, but "plotting to kidnap a governor" can (and should) be shortened to "plotting to kidnap". The job of the person they were targeting is related to the crime only tangentially via their motives. The crime of kidnapping would be a crime regardless of whether they did it for politics, money, or fun. Adding "a governor" makes it seem as if you believe governors are more important than other people, and that kidnapping them should be punished more harshly. That's totally antithetical to a democratic society free of discrimination.
  - itsyaboi 4y ago
    A governor is absolutely more "important" than your average Joe. Pretending that laws are enforced evenly is naive at best and a openly bad faith argument at worst. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
    - generj 4y ago
      This goes beyond the governor being part of the elite and thus more likely to be protected by the law than an average citizen (unfortunately the case in the US). Attacking high public officials functionally is equivalent to attacking the state itself. Of course a government is going to punish people who attack it more harshly than those who do not. To do otherwise is to give a green light to anarchy and future attacks on the government.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
    It absolutely is. Literally and legally. You go from a charge of kidnapping to a charge of kidnapping of a federal official, which is way worse legally.
    - landemva 4y ago
      How is a governor in a State a federal official?
      - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
- sjeuebdhs 4y ago
  Nope. They were setup by the corrupt fbi.
P_I_Staker 4y ago
Lots of people don't know this, but the FBI is a joke. They don't really do much to keep us safe. The vast majority of their effort is targeted at low effort stupid, and/or mentally ill nobodies of little notoriety. I appreciate them going after pedos, but even when a co-worker was nabbed I couldn't help thinking: is this really an effective strategy vs. a low effort way to put meaningless points on the board? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he got caught. It was one of the dumbest things I ever read, because the dude was basically just doing it on openly on semi-public social media accounts. Again, I'm glad he's stupid and got busted; he got a lot of years (almost a decade) and I don't feel sorry for him (the indictment was disgusting, even if he didn't have known "new victims"). On the other hand, it seemed like a lot of effort (and almost certainly celebration/career building from the federal agents) for someone drag and dropping files informally... I'm uncomfortable even harboring that thought considering what he is, and this is NOT a victimless crime, but I'm suspicious that they're using these low effort kills to pad their stats, and they may be wasting effort (in other cases that don't involve child exploitation) and using it to inflate their importance. They're just going for the most low hanging, easy targets; many of them are far from the higher level of threat. In some cases the FBI seems to be manufacturing crime out of thin air and getting away with it. They catch some slightly threatening chump, trick them into committing crimes (in other cases than the pedo one I mentioned), throw a bunch of years at them, and spike the football. Meanwhile traffickers, terrorists (and probably CP producers too) are barely under threat. I'm sure they would say that they go after them too, but it's just harder to bust more sophisticated criminals, and that they do in smaller number; still I've been skeptical ever since I heard about this stuff. Anyway it's easier to talk about the governor case, because she's an authority figure that never had to even go face to face with them. It really seems to have some of the hallmarks of the issues I described. I also do understand that this is a part of crime fighting and you should still nab the easy dumbasses; but you shouldn't trick them into committing new crimes. IMO even if they maybe would commit the crime under different circumstances.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  This problem is not limited to the FBI. Local law enforcement will not pursue cases that require actual investigation and detective work. For example, only 3% of rapes end in a conviction; most suspects are never even charged.
refurb 4y ago
It’s pretty wild how the FBI has been basically creating crimes out of thin air by infiltrating groups with informants and then encouraging the breaking of laws. Not just proud boys but also with Islamic radical groups. I know entrapment is a fine line, but they’ve clearly overstepped it in a few instances.

whateveracct 4y ago

"A bunch" .. wasn't it like 2 who were acquitted? Plenty of other people (most of the bunch I think?) were also rightfully found guilty of crimes associated with plotting to kidnap a governor.

yucky 4y ago
I believe two were acquitted due to clear entrapment by the FBI, two more plead guilty before it came out that their group had been entrapped by the FBI (oops), and then two more were actually convicted despite the entrapment of the group, since they were considered culpable enough. Meanwhile there were somewhere between 5 (all the FBI has admitted to) and 12 (based on testimony of those charged) people involved who were known FBI informants. So even if we split the difference, most of the people involved appear to have actually been FBI informants. Meanwhile, Americans are still not allowed to hear why Ray Epps has never been charged as a primary instigator of January 6th.
- sterlind 4y ago
  entrapment is a very narrow defense. see this handy comic for an explanation of entrapment: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633 basically, it's only entrapment if the informants put some kind of unreasonable pressure on you to make you break the law, something that would tempt any reasonable person.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >it's only entrapment if the informants put some kind of unreasonable pressure on you to make you break the law, something that would tempt any reasonable person. Like having a female informant sleep with you and ply you with drugs to get you to make statements that are later used to prosecute you? Let's remember no kidnapping took place here. These men were prosecuted for allegedly conspiring in a plot (that was never carried out), which was cooked up by informants and FBI agents. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/whitmer-kidnap-trial-fbi-informant-slept-room-suspect https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/whitmer-kidn...
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      Your comment has a lot of innuendo: > sleep with you There is no allegation or proof the agent had a sexual relationship with the defendant > ply you with drugs The agent in question smoked weed with the defendant. Your use of "drugs" here is innuendo for sure. And there's nothing saying the agent either "plied" the defendant with said weed (is it so unbelievable for the defendant to smoke weed in Michigan?) and definitely nothing proving that the agent drugged the defendant to get them to incriminate himself. Also keep in mind a few more things: 1. Multiple people were charged for plotting to kidnap the governor. That's a fact. You obviously believe that it was a complete FBI false flag or something of that sort? But that's conspiracy theory as it stands. 2. Plotting to kidnap a governor is a serious crime! Your comment tries to diminish that. But that is an act of domestic terrorism and embedding FBI agents in said groups trying to do such a plot is not untoward. That's their job. 3. Your source is the Washington Examiner (heavily conservative leaning is a nice way to describe it), and the content is only statements by the defendant with the weakest corroboration by the FBI. A grain of salt is needed for sure.
      - yucky 4y ago
        > Multiple people were charged for plotting to kidnap the governor. That's a fact. You obviously believe that it was a complete FBI false flag or something of that sort? But that's conspiracy theory as it stands. FYI, the majority of the people involved in the plot were actually FBI informants. That's not a conspiracy, and it's part of the reason the case was so bungled.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  > since they were considered culpable enough. Or because (at least in one case, not sure about the other) their original trial ended in a mistrial and in the second, the judge disallowed a lot of the entrapment evidence. That could have something to do with the different outcome. But of course this is just an idea and we will never know.
t-3 4y ago
Pedantic, but "plotting to kidnap a governor" can (and should) be shortened to "plotting to kidnap". The job of the person they were targeting is related to the crime only tangentially via their motives. The crime of kidnapping would be a crime regardless of whether they did it for politics, money, or fun. Adding "a governor" makes it seem as if you believe governors are more important than other people, and that kidnapping them should be punished more harshly. That's totally antithetical to a democratic society free of discrimination.
- itsyaboi 4y ago
  A governor is absolutely more "important" than your average Joe. Pretending that laws are enforced evenly is naive at best and a openly bad faith argument at worst. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
  - generj 4y ago
    This goes beyond the governor being part of the elite and thus more likely to be protected by the law than an average citizen (unfortunately the case in the US). Attacking high public officials functionally is equivalent to attacking the state itself. Of course a government is going to punish people who attack it more harshly than those who do not. To do otherwise is to give a green light to anarchy and future attacks on the government.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
  It absolutely is. Literally and legally. You go from a charge of kidnapping to a charge of kidnapping of a federal official, which is way worse legally.
  - landemva 4y ago
    How is a governor in a State a federal official?
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
sjeuebdhs 4y ago
Nope. They were setup by the corrupt fbi.

P_I_Staker 4y ago

Lots of people don't know this, but the FBI is a joke. They don't really do much to keep us safe. The vast majority of their effort is targeted at low effort stupid, and/or mentally ill nobodies of little notoriety. I appreciate them going after pedos, but even when a co-worker was nabbed I couldn't help thinking: is this really an effective strategy vs. a low effort way to put meaningless points on the board? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he got caught. It was one of the dumbest things I ever read, because the dude was basically just doing it on openly on semi-public social media accounts. Again, I'm glad he's stupid and got busted; he got a lot of years (almost a decade) and I don't feel sorry for him (the indictment was disgusting, even if he didn't have known "new victims"). On the other hand, it seemed like a lot of effort (and almost certainly celebration/career building from the federal agents) for someone drag and dropping files informally... I'm uncomfortable even harboring that thought considering what he is, and this is NOT a victimless crime, but I'm suspicious that they're using these low effort kills to pad their stats, and they may be wasting effort (in other cases that don't involve child exploitation) and using it to inflate their importance. They're just going for the most low hanging, easy targets; many of them are far from the higher level of threat. In some cases the FBI seems to be manufacturing crime out of thin air and getting away with it. They catch some slightly threatening chump, trick them into committing crimes (in other cases than the pedo one I mentioned), throw a bunch of years at them, and spike the football. Meanwhile traffickers, terrorists (and probably CP producers too) are barely under threat. I'm sure they would say that they go after them too, but it's just harder to bust more sophisticated criminals, and that they do in smaller number; still I've been skeptical ever since I heard about this stuff. Anyway it's easier to talk about the governor case, because she's an authority figure that never had to even go face to face with them. It really seems to have some of the hallmarks of the issues I described. I also do understand that this is a part of crime fighting and you should still nab the easy dumbasses; but you shouldn't trick them into committing new crimes. IMO even if they maybe would commit the crime under different circumstances.

voakbasda 4y ago
This problem is not limited to the FBI. Local law enforcement will not pursue cases that require actual investigation and detective work. For example, only 3% of rapes end in a conviction; most suspects are never even charged.

refurb 4y ago

It’s pretty wild how the FBI has been basically creating crimes out of thin air by infiltrating groups with informants and then encouraging the breaking of laws. Not just proud boys but also with Islamic radical groups. I know entrapment is a fine line, but they’ve clearly overstepped it in a few instances.