3 ms·
> The government hatched a large part of the plot Which parts? > You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible. That is a weird
by cosmicgadget 1y ago
> The government hatched a large part of the plot
Which parts?
> You'd have to prove a negative that no one else did which seems impossible.
That is a weird way to operate, particularly since you just assigned "a large part" of the creation of the plot to informants without proving that no one else on earth thought of it beforehand.
> Fed assets trained , funded, planned, and encouraged it
They were also militia assets with a pretty strong incentive to not act abnormally. You are welcome to be opposed to undercover work, most of the country is not. In the end, they key figures were convicted and the kidnapping didn't happen.
- mothballed 1y agoLoop to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45216655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45216655. >st assigned "a large part" of the creation Stated as generation/"generating violent conspiracies", not initial conception of mere idea which by itself might not even be illegal activity. You can't even have a conspiracy without an overt act, which FBI extensively aided and generated. We're just looping now. End of loop.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoYou cannot legally have a conspiracy conviction without an overt act. Clearly the plot to kidnap the governor was an actual criminal enterprise from its inception. The FBI did a great job exposing a violent militia.