Jump to content
The Education Forum

Secret Service participation in 1/6 coup attempt


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Kirk G--

An interesting question is, how many of those people on Jan 6, immediately released after arrest, despite showing up bearing arms and wearing body, and carrying gas masks...were government agents or assets? 

Not all. Perhaps not half, even. One-quarter? Could they have acted as provocateurs? 

It appears the Jan. 6 scrum was thick with informants. 

Here is one of the rioters arrested Jan. 6, her name is Rashan Abual-Ragheb.

8423424_J-ScreenShot2564-08-03at11_39_39.jpg.283e3cc9fd9f1c274c6ce3beadcf17c1.jpg

"On January 6, 2021, Confidential Human Source #2 (CHS 2) advised the FBI Philadelphia that on the night of January 6, 2021, CHS 2 encountered a woman on the sidewalk of the Kimpton George Hotel in Washington D.C. dressed in distinct clothing and making a scene (attachment 4, which was photo taken by CHS)."

So, there were "confidential human sources" or informants in the scrum. How many? Enough to take pictures of women like this. 

Along with Mr Buffalo Horns...a nation could have been toppled. 

That said, I congratulate you on reading primary documents, and thinking for yourself.

We should all do so.  If you have a different take than me, that's fine. 

Is the picture above even in the Capitol on 1/6?  Looks a little too peaceful to me for the documented violent Insurrection.  Maybe South Dakota?  I'm likely wrong, that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Is the picture above even in the Capitol on 1/6?  Looks a little too peaceful to me for the documented violent Insurrection.  Maybe South Dakota?  I'm likely wrong, that's fine.

 

The suspect, Rashan Abual-Ragheb, was, apparently, photographed by an informant on the sidewalk in front of the Kimpton George Hotel in DC. 

See in original post: 

 "CHS 2 encountered a woman on the sidewalk of the Kimpton George Hotel in Washington D.C. dressed in distinct clothing and making a scene (attachment 4, which was photo taken by CHS)."

CHS stands for "confidential human source." 

By the lights of many, she is a dangerous subversive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be lots of attempts to blame others for what happened on 1/6; on the night of the riots Matt Gaetz tried to claim it was Antifa dressed as Trump supporters. Trump's proud army didn't care for that too much. Lately we've heard attempts to blame the FBI and Nancy Pelosi, lol. There is definitely an air of desperation to it.

Recall how people tried to blame Castro or Russia for the JFKA. Same type of deflection BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

There will be lots of attempts to blame others for what happened on 1/6; on the night of the riots Matt Gaetz tried to claim it was Antifa dressed as Trump supporters. Trump's proud army didn't care for that too much. Lately we've heard attempts to blame the FBI and Nancy Pelosi, lol. There is definitely an air of desperation to it.

Recall how people tried to blame Castro or Russia for the JFKA. Same type of deflection BS.

Matt A.--

 

You could be right.

But I hear two big versions out there. 

1. There was a scrum, but some Trumpers were instigators or provocateurs, and led the occupation of the Capitol. 

2. There was a scrum, but there were provocateurs in the crowd, who had unknown motives, and may have been government infiltrators, assets, informants or agents. 

At this stage in the investigation, which will be an investigation conducted by the federal government...why are you so sure of one version or the other? 

Like LHO was responsible, and alone, as determined Nov. 25? 

And why was "Christopher Alberts" released immediately (despite having 24 rounds of ammo, pistol, a gas mask, and wearing body armor), but Mr. Buffalo Horns is still behind bars six months after Jan. 6? 

How does this add up? 

 

 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for repeating, I posted this on the thread 'The Inevitable end result of our last 56 years' but thought it appropriate here too.

On Friday, the House oversight committee released notes of a 27 December telephone call from Trump to then acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, in which Trump told Rosen: “Just say the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R congressmen.” The notes were taken by Richard Donoghue, Rosen’s deputy, who was also on the call.

The release of these notes has barely made a stir. The weekend news was filled with more immediate things – infrastructure! The Delta strain! Inflation! Wildfires! In light of everything else going on, Trump’s bizarre efforts in the last weeks of his presidency seem wearily irrelevant. Didn’t we already know how desperate he was?

In a word, no. This revelation is hugely important.

Rosen obviously rejected Trump’s request. But what if Rosen had obeyed Trump and said to the American public that the election was corrupt – and then “left the rest” to Trump and the Republican congressmen? What would Trump’s and the Republicans’ next moves have been? And which Republican congressmen were in cahoots with Trump in this attempted coup d’état?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

Apologies for repeating, I posted this on the thread 'The Inevitable end result of our last 56 years' but thought it appropriate here too.

On Friday, the House oversight committee released notes of a 27 December telephone call from Trump to then acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, in which Trump told Rosen: “Just say the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R congressmen.” The notes were taken by Richard Donoghue, Rosen’s deputy, who was also on the call.

The release of these notes has barely made a stir. The weekend news was filled with more immediate things – infrastructure! The Delta strain! Inflation! Wildfires! In light of everything else going on, Trump’s bizarre efforts in the last weeks of his presidency seem wearily irrelevant. Didn’t we already know how desperate he was?

In a word, no. This revelation is hugely important.

Rosen obviously rejected Trump’s request. But what if Rosen had obeyed Trump and said to the American public that the election was corrupt – and then “left the rest” to Trump and the Republican congressmen? What would Trump’s and the Republicans’ next moves have been? And which Republican congressmen were in cahoots with Trump in this attempted coup d’état?

Pete M.--

 

There is little disputing Trump was a lulu and a skunk. 

The question here is, was Jan 6---

 

1. Just a scrum. The marginalized and nuts ran wild for a few hours. 

2. A scrum, but there were provocateurs and leaders, taking orders from Trump and high associates, who led the occupation of the Capitol. 

3. A scrum, bu there were non-Trump informants, plants and provocateurs who instigated violence at the Capitol and the occupation. 

On No. 2: I am puzzled. If these there were instigators working for Trump, and breached the Capitol---in at least one case carrying 24 rounds of ammo, a pistol, wearing body armor and carrying a gas mask---why were they immediately released, not even posting bail? 

And why is Mr Buffalo Horns still in prison, and cannot post bail? 

Does this add up to you?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

       Did this Alberts guy, in fact, breach the Capitol?  From your initial post, it sounded like he was accosted by a police officer somewhere in D.C. before fleeing the scene.  Did you see any Capitol police chasing fleeing insurrectionists during the 1/6 assault on the Capitol?  I must have missed that footage.  For the most part, the Capitol police were in defensive formations, backing up, trying to hold the line and protect the entrances to the Capitol from the attacking mob.

      Meanwhile, your response to the information I posted about Trump's associates-- Giuliani, Bannon, Roger Stone, et.al.-- convening on January 5th at the Willard Hotel was to simply attack the messenger, Seth Abramson.  You didn't address the data Abramson presented. (BTW, I happen to believe that Abramson's analysis of Trump's ties to the Kremlin is, essentially, accurate.   Russ Baker was another investigative journalist who wrote as early as 2016 about Trump's multi-decade business deals with Felix Sater and Russian oligarchs.)

     So, I'll finally tell you my theory about January 6th.  It differs significantly from yours.

1)     I think Trump was desperate to remain in office, and deliberately planned to subvert the certification of the election by Congress on January 6th.  (In fact, we know that he told the DOJ on December 27th, "Just say the election was corrupt and I'll take care of the rest.")

2)   He stirred up mass outrage in his base with his Big Lie about election fraud, then he and his associates organized a march on the Capitol to disrupt the January 6th certification. 

3)   Trump and numerous associates deliberately worked their mob into a violent frenzy on January 6th before the planned march to the Capitol.  They spoke of "fighting like hell," "kicking some ass," "trial by combat," and obvious rhetoric about fighting to "save the country," etc.  Trump was, apparently, delighted to watch the assault on the Capitol police.  He called it a "lovefest."

4)   I believe that Trump directed his gofer at the Pentagon, Chris Miller, to block the deployment of National Guard troops to assist the Capitol police and protect the Capitol from his mob.

5)   An ancillary Trump plan may have involved creating a pretext to remove Mike Pence from the Capitol, in order to block the certification of Biden's election.

       And with 5) this thread has come full circle.

 

Ben,

     Valid theories are, by definition, explanatory frameworks for all of the facts, which are not refuted by any established  facts.  It's a very high bar.

      A theory that ignores the essential facts in the case is like a car with no motor or wheels.  It takes up space (in a driveway or on a forum) and is, fundamentally, useless.

     How does your "Deep State" theory about January 6th explain all of the essential facts about Trump and his associates manipulating their fans to attack Congress and block the certification of the election?

     Your theoretical January 6th automobile has no motor and only one wheel-- i.e., evidence that the FBI may have had some informants in the ranks of the Proud Boys.

     But, as I pointed out a few pages ago, there is a more rational interpretation of your FBI wheel.

     To wit, why did Christopher Wray's FBI fail to protect Congress from Trump's mob?  Did the Trump administration suppress the FBI intelligence, or did Wray's people fail to provide it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     Valid theories are, by definition, explanatory frameworks for all of the facts, which are not refuted by any established  facts.  It's a very high bar.

      A theory that ignores the essential facts in the case is like a car with no motor or wheels.  It takes up space (in a driveway or on a forum) and is, fundamentally, useless.

     How does your "Deep State" theory about January 6th explain all of the essential facts about Trump and his associates manipulating their fans to attack Congress and block the certification of the election?

     Your theoretical January 6th automobile has no motor and only one wheel-- i.e., evidence that the FBI may have had some informants in the ranks of the Proud Boys.

     But, as I pointed out a few pages ago, there is a more rational interpretation of your FBI wheel.

     To wit, why did Christopher Wray's FBI fail to protect Congress from Trump's mob?  Did the Trump administration suppress the FBI intelligence, or did Wray's people fail to provide it?

W.--"To wit, why did Christopher Wray's FBI fail to protect Congress from Trump's mob?  Did the Trump administration suppress the FBI intelligence, or did Wray's people fail to provide it?"

Exactly! Are you making my argument for me? 

This is an interesting question, no?  Interestingly, even AOC and Tucker Carlson have asked variations of this. 

But how on earth could Trump & Co. "suppress  intelligence" gathered by the expansive, panopticonic national security state? A national security state that repeatedly shown itself impervious to White House and Congressional oversight? 

We know the national security state-globalist community, which has run military-foreign policy and operated with impunity for decades (essentially, since WWII), wanted Trump out, not in. Look at Liz Cheney for clues. 

So...what happened on Jan. 6? 

Are you suggesting a ninth-inning (actually, an after-the-game) alliance between Trumpers and the national security state to upend a national election that would bring an establishment candidate back into the Oval Office? That strikes me as unlikely. 

Are you suggesting that Christopher Alberts breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, armed with a pistol and 24 rounds, and body armor, and a gas mask, and then was immediately released on own recognizance, no bail posted...as he was a Trumper? 

Or...as he was a government infiltrator, instigator, asset or provocateur? 

The Jan. 6 scrum has proved a useful propaganda platform for...whom? 

As you often ask, who benefited from 9/11? Who benefited from the JFKA? And who benefits from the Jan. 6 propaganda platform? 

The LIz Cheneys of DC, whether they are Donks or 'Phants, no? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben,

    

50 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.--"To wit, why did Christopher Wray's FBI fail to protect Congress from Trump's mob?  Did the Trump administration suppress the FBI intelligence, or did Wray's people fail to provide it?"

Exactly! Are you making my argument for me? 

This is an interesting question, no?  Interestingly, even AOC and Tucker Carlson have asked variations of this. 

But how on earth could Trump & Co. "suppress  intelligence" gathered by the expansive, panopticonic national security state? A national security state that repeatedly shown itself impervious to White House and Congressional oversight?


     Ben,

          Who repeatedly blocked sending the National Guard to protect Congress during the attacks?

           In fact, it was Trump's lackey at the Pentagon, Chris Miller, who was appointed in late 2020 to replace the exasperated Mark Esper (who had replaced the exasperated General Mattis.)

           Cui bono?   Do you really believe that Liz Cheney benefited from the Trump mob attack on Congress? 

          I never thought I would be defending a Cheney, but the notion is absurd.

           As for the FBI, who appointed Christopher Wray to run the FBI after Trump fired James Comey (for his refusal to shut down the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn?)

           If Wray warned the Trump administration about the impending January 6th attacks, the intel was, obviously, ignored by Trump and his inner circle.  If Wray didn't warn anyone, the only beneficiary would have been Trump.

          Either way, your theory that the FBI was engaged in a black op to undermine Trump on January 6th makes no sense.

     

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    


     Ben,

          Who repeatedly blocked sending the National Guard to protect Congress during the attacks?

           In fact, it was Trump's lackey at the Pentagon, Chris Miller, who was appointed in late 2020 to replace the exasperated Mark Esper (who had replaced the exasperated General Mattis.)

           Cui bono?   Do you really believe that Liz Cheney benefited from the Trump mob attack on Congress? 

          I never thought I would be defending a Cheney, but the notion is absurd.

           As for the FBI, who appointed Christopher Wray to run the FBI after Trump fired James Comey (for his refusal to shut down the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn?)

           If Wray warned the Trump administration about the impending January 6th attacks, the intel was, obviously, ignored by Trump and his inner circle.  If Wray didn't warn anyone, the only beneficiary would have been Trump.

          Either way, your theory that the FBI was engaged in a black op to undermine Trump on January 6th makes no sense.

     

OK, you have final word, on the strength of your convictions, if not arguments. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Trump ask for 10k National Guard for  Jan 6th? Just came across this from Vanity Fair:

 

“On the evening of January 5—the night before a white supremacist mob stormed Capitol Hill in a siege that would leave five dead—the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”

I could not recall the last time a contingent that large had been called up to supplement law enforcement at all, much less at a demonstration—the Women’s March and the Million Man March sprang to mind—and so I asked the acting SECDEF why Trump threw out such a big number. “The president’s sometimes hyperbolic, as you’ve noticed. There were gonna be a million people in the street, I think was his expectation.” Miller maintained that initial reports on the anticipated crowd size were all over the map—anywhere from 5,000 to 40,000. “Park Police—everybody’s so hesitant to give numbers. So I think that was what was driving the president.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/embedding-with-pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Proud Boys are having a rough time. The self-described "Western chauvinist" drinking club has long been a refuge for white supremacists, anti-Semites and assorted extremists seeking a veneer of legitimacy.

But in the wake of the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol last month, the group is in some disarray, as state chapters disavow the group's chairman and leaders bicker in public and in private about what direction to take the Proud Boys in.

Proud Boys chairman Henry Tarrio, who goes by Enrique, was arrested days before the Capitol riot and charged with two federal weapons charges. Three weeks later, Tarrio was outed as a longtime FBI informant, a role he has now admitted to. "---USA Today.

---30---

A longtime federal informant? Huh? 

This is Enrique Tarrio, the white supremacist:

1823303277_ScreenShot2564-08-04at14_14_47.jpg.fdfcf4b7583037dd9214c09ffd82b455.jpg

So...the leader of the Proud Boys was actually working for the national security state...and appears to Afro-Cubano in heritage. 

But Tarrio was arrested before the scrum at the Capitol. 

Yes, it is all clear now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher Alberts wasn't simply released. He was indicted on 4 charges:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1364751/download

He was NOT arrested DURING the so called "scrum"; he was arrested AFTERWARDS...AFTER DC Mayor Muriel Bowser had declared a CURFEW.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gun-toting-rioter-man-who-slugged-cop-among-first-charged-for-capitol-chaos-feds/ar-BB1cyMKY

But for some reason, Mr. Cole left out these details.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which of the rioters is currently incarcerated and which are allowed bail is almost entirely up to the judges that happen to be in a particular jurisdiction. The main factors appear to be potential for further violence or flight risk; many are given ankle monitors. Angeli appears to have preferred garish headwear as opposed to a simple hat to cover his baldness; that choice has led to his photo being plastered everywhere and deemed a symbol of the insurrection. Along with putting a threatening letter on Mike Pence's desk and defiling the chambers of Congress, this appears to be why his judge refuses to release him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...