5 ms·

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),

by 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.
      - whateveracct 4y ago
        "Majority" here is unsubstantiated. That's not some fact you can sling around.
        yucky 4y ago
        The FBI admitted to at least 5 informants as part of the group. Testimony implicated another 7 informants. So yes, that's a fact. And I don't need to sling it around, it came out at trial.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
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.

by yucky 4y ago

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.
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      "Majority" here is unsubstantiated. That's not some fact you can sling around.
      - yucky 4y ago
        The FBI admitted to at least 5 informants as part of the group. Testimony implicated another 7 informants. So yes, that's a fact. And I don't need to sling it around, it came out at trial.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

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.