Secret Service participation in 1/6 coup attempt

[Steven Kossor]

Remember that the people who were successful in manipulating voters "just enough" to get Trump elected in 2016 (read Chris Wylie's book Mind F*ck for more information about them) proved very sophisticated in their understanding of the Electoral College and how to move the levers of power to achieve their goal. The same people are probably behind the events following the 2020 election when their "plan a" didn't work.  The people in the spotlight are actors -- they are never responsible for the production.

[Matt Allison]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

No, I am not suggesting all videos and photos are fake. I am suggesting that a government cannot be trusted to investigate itself. 

Witness the JFKA....

The government is made up of real people. Whether the government is trustworthy or not is directly tied to how trustworthy the people are that the voters elect.

These days, I find it remarkably easy to distinguish who is likely to be trustworthy, and who is most certainly not.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Cole, IMHO your posts betray your claims of being open-minded. It appears you have already fixed upon a narrative and apparently will defend it until hell freezes over.

Of course, the 1/6 insurrection was executed by the "rabble." Had it been successful, I have zero doubt that Trump would have said that it reflected "the will of the people," and that it indicated that he should not vacate the White House...casting more doubts upon the election results.

To what do I refer when I said, "Had it been successful,..."? Two possibilities. One, the insurrectionists capture Pelosi, Schumer and Pence and execute them. Or two, the Secret service manage to spirit Pence away to parts unknow, possibly to a "tragic" plane crash or other alleged accidental death scenario.

In either of these scenarios, there would be no VP to certify the Electoral College results. Had that been the case, the Constitution has no "fallback" provision in the absence of a VP. So what happens then? LITIGATION. And there is no inauguration on January 20, because the case is yet to be decided. And in a worst-case scenario, Trump retains office because the situation is not only unprecedented in our history, but also heretofore unanticipated by the architects of the Constitution.

And America then becomes the biggest banana republic in the history of the world.

 

 

Mark K.--

The scenario you propose, of Secret Service collusion in a putsch, and complicity by many other government agencies and actors, does strike me as farfetched.

For Trump to succeed himself after losing the election would require the complicity of the national security state, affiliated media, and a major political party. 

Remember, the JFKA was not a "regime-change operation" but rather a "regime re-installation operation." The regime--the national security state, affiliated meda, the globalists--was already in place. They immediately embraced LBJ. 

The national security state-regime did not want Trump as president. His self-succession story is stillborn, if ever conceived. 

Liz Cheney is an indicator....

But hey, I have my views, and you have yours. I do not take umbrage at your views, nor do I define your personality or intellect as inferior for having different views. 

 

 

 

 

[Matt Allison]

Trying to blame everything on the "national security state" when you have zero evidence to back your position can't really be taken seriously.

It sounds more like anti-American propaganda, than an actual attempt to get at the truth.

[Steven Kossor]

Is it possible that the "National Security State" operatives and the "fascist oligarchy" operatives are competing forces, and that the US is in the midst of a power struggle between those two forces (acknowledging that there are undoubtedly some with loyalties on both sides)?

[W. Niederhut]

18 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

Remember that the people who were successful in manipulating voters "just enough" to get Trump elected in 2016 (read Chris Wylie's book Mind F*ck for more information about them) proved very sophisticated in their understanding of the Electoral College and how to move the levers of power to achieve their goal. The same people are probably behind the events following the 2020 election when their "plan a" didn't work.  The people in the spotlight are actors -- they are never responsible for the production.

        It's a different can of worms, Steven, but I share your suspicion about those 2016 vote tallies-- especially in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where a combined total of only 80,000 votes threw the Electoral College vote tally to Trump, in an election where Trump lost the popular vote by 2%.  And the tallies in those states were oddly inconsistent with both pre-election and exit polls.  The conservative post-election media spin was that the pollsters were idiots.

      My impression was that, if some clever hackers of voter registration data bases (domestic or foreign) wanted to throw the 2016 EC to Trump, they knew precisely how to do it.  And we learned later that voter data bases in many U.S. states had, in fact, been hacked by Russians.   Perhaps someone in the Trump campaign had shared sophisticated polling data with those skilled hackers.   Just a theory...  🤥

      If I recall correctly, a political science professor in Wisconsin calculated that at least 23,000 legal Democratic votes in Milwaukee alone were not counted in 2016.  Tallies in Democratic Detroit were also suspiciously low.

     But I digress.  Back to the January 6th coup attempt and the guys with military and police training who stormed the Capitol with chemical weapons and zip ties-- presumably for the purpose of physically apprehending members of Congress and the Vice President. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

13 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

I do believe that the pageantry put on display in the US Capitol on 1/6 was probably a diversion intended to conceal (not reveal) a more diabolical production that was underway behind the scenes, which was thwarted by unexpected actions that couldn't be countered fast enough to get the production back on the rails (the JFKA plotters were a little more successful). I'm really interested in knowing exactly why Mr. Pence refused the ride offered to him; suspicion about the intentions of the SS players seems a viable hypothesis. The effort we've been expending in trying to figure out what really happened on 11/22/63 seems to have been time well-spent as we try to figure out what's happening to our country right now. We need to keep the events in focus and slice up the time line carefully so we don't overlook crucial events (the best way to thwart the confirmation bias) and minimize sidebar attacks on each other.

"minimize sidebar attacks on each other."

Amen, brother. 

I may disagree with your views, and I will then explain my views. I do not take umbrage at your views, nor draw conclusions about your intellect or personality (although your writing reveals obvious intelligence). 

Maybe we can peel back the curtain together, maybe not. Maybe I am wrong. So what? 

Yes, I think it is possible the 1/6 event was somewhat staged, triggered by agent provocateurs.  It is also possible, perhaps more likely, it was just a scrum, which was seized upon as a propaganda platform.

The 1/6 event had no chance of leading to a successful regime change, but was immediately seized upon to expand the police state, and develop a narrative. The existing security-state globalist regime strengthened its grip on the media (intruding more on the 1% not already controlled).  

1/6 has become a propaganda platform ever since---witness the narrative regarding Brian Sicknick, right from the start.

To me (and this is not a perfect analogy) one should watch politics/media like a chess game, in which neither player, nor the game commentator, are friends of yours.  Be a neutral observer. 

Why were some moves made? Who has the power to make moves, and compel favorable media coverage?

Good luck out there. Please bring your narratives to this forum. I like to see different points of view. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

I do think Ben’s views are quite important. Given how partisan the public discourse is, and that the truth often lies somewhere between two extremes, I welcome opposing views, which make for a healthy discourse in a free and open society. It helps us look at things from an opposing perspective and question our own views, which often aren’t derived from own critical thinking but, from powerful media direction in this day and age. 
There is nothing too metaphysical, abstruse or esoteric about what Ben is saying. All we can do is seek truth, and that can’t be found by searching out material that suits our own confirmation bias or patting each other on the back for sharing the same views. We have much more in common than what makes us different. We should also maintain our high values regardless of which political party or affiliation is in question or at fault. Of course this is easier said than done, as we are all human and imperfect. 
Whatever the true answer is here, lets hope it is found and not whitewashed. Lets hope the result isn’t that the place we occupy isn’t less free as a result of the enquiry. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

Is it possible that the "National Security State" operatives and the "fascist oligarchy" operatives are competing forces, and that the US is in the midst of a power struggle between those two forces (acknowledging that there are undoubtedly some with loyalties on both sides)?

Steven K.--

Verily, the national security state and the multinational community are symbiotic. That's my view. 

In my view, this goes all the way back to Smedley Butler, through the Dulles brothers years and to the present day, with each iteration becoming more powerful. The "globalists" if you will, and the Deep State. These are shorthand phrases.

Today, no establishment candidate challenges a hypermobilized and globalized US military, or the influence of an Apple, GM, Tesla, Disney, Exxon, BlackRock, Walmart etc. 

There may be a schism developing regarding China.

Obviously, the globalists are in tight with the China manufacturing base and the CCP.  The mainstream media handling of the Wuhan virus story is amazing. The globalists literally censored those who suggested the lab leak hypothesis (in my amateur view, the most likely explanation). 

But now, elements of the US military are finding friction with the CCP and PLA. For reasons that are not clear, the CCP is becoming truculent. 

This will be fascinating to watch. Trump was a wild card in this one, and changed the whole tone of conversation on China. Can Biden patch things up with Beijing? 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I do think Ben’s views are quite important. Given how partisan the public discourse is, and that the truth often lies somewhere between two extremes, I welcome opposing views, which make for a healthy discourse in a free and open society. It helps us look at things from an opposing perspective and question our own views, which often aren’t derived from own critical thinking but, from powerful media direction in this day and age. 
There is nothing too metaphysical, abstruse or esoteric about what Ben is saying. All we can do is seek truth, and that can’t be found by searching out material that suits our own confirmation bias or patting each other on the back for sharing the same views. We have much more in common than what makes us different. We should also maintain our high values regardless of which political party or affiliation is in question or at fault. Of course this is easier said than done, as we are all human and imperfect. 
Whatever the true answer is here, lets hope it is found and not whitewashed. Lets hope the result isn’t that the place we occupy isn’t less free as a result of the enquiry. 

Chris,

     I'm, certainly, in favor of open, honest discourse, but I also believe that one of the most toxic fallacies in U.S. political discourse in recent years has been so-called "both siderism"-- i.e., the dubious notion that the truth must, necessarily, be equidistant between opposing, partisan viewpoints.

     How can that, possibly, be true in a milieu where our former president has told over 30,000 well-documented lies during his four year White House tenure? (Lies which were incessantly amplified by his Fox News echo chamber.)   In fact, Trump lied, repeatedly, on a daily basis.  He's still lying. 

      Author Steve Tesich coined the term, "post truth," to describe such a political milieu, where a commitment to telling the truth is abandoned in favor of appeals to emotion and tribalism.

    But, surely, the truth is not located halfway between a lie and the truth, is it?  In such a milieu, "both siderism" is simply a fallacy.

    Case in point, related to the topic of this thread.  Trump has actually insisted that the January 6th attack on the U.S. Congress was a peaceful "lovefest!"  His Republican apologists have even referred to the violent attackers as "tourists."  That is simply not true.

     These so-called "tourists" were physically assaulting the Capitol police, spraying them with toxic chemicals, and ransacking Congress, in search of the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, in a deliberate effort to prevent the certification of the election and possibly assault or even murder them.  Many of these attackers had professional military and police training.  Some were members of organized militias with radio equipment and contacts with Trump associates. 

     And let's not forget about the inflammatory January 6th speeches by Trump, Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Don, Jr., Alex Jones, and Republican Congressman Mo Brooks, who wore body armor while urging the crowd to march down to the Capitol and "kick some ass." 

     There are also disturbing reports of apparent "war councils" by Trump's associates on January 5th.  These meetings included the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Don, Jr., Alex Jones, and others.

     Perhaps these Trump associates are the "agent provocateurs" Benjamin is referring to.  🤥

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/major-breaking-news-team-trump-had

    

Edited August 2, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

     I'm, certainly, in favor of open, honest discourse, but I also believe that one of the most toxic fallacies in U.S. political discourse in recent years has been so-called "both siderism"-- i.e., the dubious notion that the truth must, necessarily, be equidistant between opposing, partisan viewpoints.

     How can that, possibly, be true in a milieu where our former president has told over 30,000 well-documented lies during his four year White House tenure? (Lies which were incessantly amplified by his Fox News echo chamber.)   In fact, Trump lied, repeatedly, on a daily basis.  He's still lying. 

      Author Steve Tesich coined the term, "post truth," to describe such a political milieu, where a commitment to telling the truth is abandoned in favor of appeals to emotion and tribalism.

    But, surely, the truth is not located halfway between a lie and the truth, is it?  In such a milieu, "both siderism" is simply a fallacy.

    Case in point, related to the topic of this thread.  Trump has actually insisted that the January 6th attack on the U.S. Congress was a peaceful "lovefest!"  His Republican apologists have even referred to the violent attackers as "tourists."  That is simply not true.

     These so-called "tourists" were physically assaulting the Capitol police, spraying them with toxic chemicals, and ransacking Congress, in search of the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, in a deliberate effort to prevent the certification of the election and possibly assault or even murder them.  Many of these attackers had professional military and police training.  Some were members of organized militias with radio equipment and contacts with Trump associates. 

     And let's not forget about the inflammatory January 6th speeches by Trump, Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Don, Jr., Alex Jones, and Republican Congressman Mo Brooks, who wore body armor while urging the crowd to march down to the Capitol and "kick some ass." 

     There are also disturbing reports of apparent "war councils" by Trump's associates on January 5th.  These meetings included the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Don, Jr., Alex Jones, and others.

     Perhaps these Trump associates are the "agent provocateurs" Benjamin is referring to.  🤥

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/major-breaking-news-team-trump-had

    

Hi William,

It makes sense in the context you’re explaining it, but, it wasn’t quite the context I was aiming at and that may have been because the post was a little vague. Let me try to elaborate. 
 

Inevitably when any event takes place that can be used for political gain or present a threat of losing political ground for a party, some very astute PR people get together strategise how to either benefit and exploit the event, or to carry out an exercise in damage limitation. Mostly, achieving the desired result isn’t accomplished by being fair or honest, its achieved with spin, embellishment and sensationalism. By making something seem much worse or much better than it was in reality, or better than it was, the public will latch onto that. Its one of the reasons news is almost pure sensationalism and agitation. So, the somewhere in the middle comment from me is referred to the truth being somewhere between two    or more known XXXXX. Often who can stretch things the most, might end up in the most advantageous position with the electorate. The voter impression isn’t based on cold hard facts, its based on impressions. 
 

Another question I have is whether a supporter of either tribe (party) can think independently on this? There is so much emotional investment each election and we get behind things like its our footy(soccer) or baseball team(cricket), or even worse. I am a foreigner, and I’ve seen myself get absorbed by the UK labour/conservative partisan debates, its easily done. What’s even easier is to fall in line with policies or viewpoints just because your party is pushing them. For example, when Clinton or Obama advocated border security, Dems followed, when Trump advocated that, Dems were appalled. I don’t want to over simplify things, as you have lots of complex issues but, as an outsider, the end result isn’t much different. Looking at say Fox & CNN, you’d think they were talking about two completely opposite things. Of course no news network points out the commonalities or when parties agree, it doesn’t sell or grab attention. I may be in the minority but, I see a lot of pantomime and promises and very little delivery. I think Trump was the result of ‘hope and change’ not happening. 
 

As for Trump lying, and counting lies. Have we counted the lies or unfulfilled promises of all Dem & Rep presidents in the past century or so? It seems almost expected to lie as a politician. Whether its Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, tricky Dicky, Clinton, the Bushs etc. Is one lie unacceptable or only many? Is America ready to hold XXXXX in politics accountable? If so, that’s a very good thing, as truth is the best of ideals IMHO. I think the best start would be identifying when your own candidate is lying and hold them accountable. 
That’s not a ‘he said, she said’, as I don’t support either party, in the past two elections could you have possibly had worse options?  We have our own panto this side of the Atlantic Ocean. 
 

Huxley talked of the politicians of the future being actors, marketable people who could be coached to appear sincere in the public eye. 
 

I wonder how many of you would watch this video and tell me this isn’t reality:

HOPIUM 
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ShD1jwx5mJtY/

 

Cheers

Chris

 

PS anywhere it says ‘XXXXX’ it refers to people not telling the truth, it’s not profanity or a curse. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Chris Barnard
Added PS note

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

     I'm, certainly, in favor of open, honest discourse, but I also believe that one of the most toxic fallacies in U.S. political discourse in recent years has been so-called "both siderism"-- i.e., the dubious notion that the truth must, necessarily, be equidistant between opposing, partisan viewpoints.

     How can that, possibly, be true in a milieu where our former president has told over 30,000 well-documented lies during his four year White House tenure? (Lies which were incessantly amplified by his Fox News echo chamber.)   In fact, Trump lied, repeatedly, on a daily basis.  He's still lying. 

      Author Steve Tesich coined the term, "post truth," to describe such a political milieu, where a commitment to telling the truth is abandoned in favor of appeals to emotion and tribalism.

    But, surely, the truth is not located halfway between a lie and the truth, is it?  In such a milieu, "both siderism" is simply a fallacy.

    Case in point, related to the topic of this thread.  Trump has actually insisted that the January 6th attack on the U.S. Congress was a peaceful "lovefest!"  His Republican apologists have even referred to the violent attackers as "tourists."  That is simply not true.

     These so-called "tourists" were physically assaulting the Capitol police, spraying them with toxic chemicals, and ransacking Congress, in search of the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, in a deliberate effort to prevent the certification of the election and possibly assault or even murder them.  Many of these attackers had professional military and police training.  Some were members of organized militias with radio equipment and contacts with Trump associates. 

     And let's not forget about the inflammatory January 6th speeches by Trump, Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Don, Jr., Alex Jones, and Republican Congressman Mo Brooks, who wore body armor while urging the crowd to march down to the Capitol and "kick some ass." 

     There are also disturbing reports of apparent "war councils" by Trump's associates on January 5th.  These meetings included the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Don, Jr., Alex Jones, and others.

     Perhaps these Trump associates are the "agent provocateurs" Benjamin is referring to.  🤥

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/major-breaking-news-team-trump-had

    

W.-

Perhaps your scenario of the Jan. 6 scrum is correct. It is not my view. So be it.

In any event, there are very strange facts to be found in the primary documents. And I barely scratched the surface! 

One of the people arrested, allegedly trying to occupy the Capitol on Jan. 6, was a man named (or identified as) "Christopher Alberts." 

Here is a frightening description of Alberts, by an arresting officer: 

 

"I noticed a bulge on ALBERTS’ right hip. Based on my training and experience, I recognized the bulge was consistent with that of a hand gun. While pushing ALBERTS towards the line, I tapped the bulge with my baton and felt a hard object that I immediately recognized to be a firearm. At the time, ALBERTS was also wearing a bullet-proof vest and carrying a backpack. At that point, I told two MPD officers next to him that ALBERTS had a firearm on his person. ALBERTS, apparently hearing that, immediately tried to flee, but I was able to detain him with the help of two other officers. A black Taurus G2C 9mm (Serial#AAL085515) was recovered from D-1’s right hip. Additionally, a separate magazine was located on D-1’s left hip. Both the gun and the spare magazine were in held in two separate holsters. The handgun had one round in the chamber with a twelve round capacity magazine filled with twelve rounds; the spare magazine also had a twelve round capacity and was filled with twelve rounds. MPD Officers also seized a gas-mask from the defendant’s person as well as the defendant’s backpack containing a pocketknife, one packaged military meal-ready to eat (MRE), and one first-aid medical kit."

---30---

 

Egads, this Alberts strikes me as a bona fide dangerous person, no matter his political stripe. 

So...what happened to Alberts after his arrest?

"Arrested on 1/7/21. Initial appearance / detention hearing on 1/7/21. Defendant released."  

 

"Status conference set for 9/8/21. Defendant remains on personal recognizance."

OK, so Mr Buffalo Horns, the iconic figurehead of the Jan.6 insurrection, and likely but a mentally challenged gadlfy, remains behind bars.

But Alberts, a guy wearing body armor and packing 24 rounds of ammo...is released his own recognizance. On Jan. 7! No bail! 

I have no evidence that Alberts was a government agent or asset. But it is one explanation. 

You might ask, "So why was Alberts arrested if he was a G-man?" Easy.

The DC Metropolitan Police Department arrested him, not federal agents. They got back to the station house, and it was cleared up. Who knows if Alberts' name is Alberts. The other arrest reports contain extensive documents on the suspect's or arrestee's ID. Not Albert's. Nothing. 

Think it over, not just W., but everybody (including me), about this Alberts guy.

Was "Alberts" a Trumper? Alberts breached the Capitol wearing body armor and packing heavy ammo...and is immediately released? Does that ring right? 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

Everything is right in the above docs. 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Benjamin Cole
typo

[Steven Kossor]

Watched the HOPIUM program. No doubt that appeals to hope (for change, for justice, for integrity) have resonated with people of all sorts throughout history, and will always do so, and explains why politician/actors strive to embody it and ride the optimism it produces into office. That they are merely actors in a production not of their making is clarified by their behavior once in office....

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

Watched the HOPIUM program. No doubt that appeals to hope (for change, for justice, for integrity) have resonated with people of all sorts throughout history, and will always do so, and explains why politician/actors strive to embody it and ride the optimism it produces into office. That they are merely actors in a production not of their making is clarified by their behavior once in office....

That’s essentially the hardest thing for the average person to comprehend, believe or accept, that they’re buying into theatre and their hope rests with a self interested caretaker who is acting out instructions.
In Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy & Hope” he alludes to American politics being a 2 party system giving the people the narrowest differences in policy but, making them feel they are enacting change or that their vote counts. Quigley wasn’t a whistleblower, he was an establishment ivy league guy, he thought he was telling history as it is. Despite his book being successful, he suddenly found the publisher didn’t want to do further print runs and made a series of excuses why they wouldn’t. Of course his words about Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and the Council on Foreign Relations could have been the reason. The book is a very detailed history of the world from 1870 to 1963. The book is far from easy reading but, perhaps very important. I’ll do a thread on it when I have time. 

[Steven Kossor]

I read Tragedy & Hope several years ago and squeezed the same realizations out of it. Quigley was one of the people who was a mentor to Bill Clinton and who he praised roundly for his insights and understanding of political realities. I really appreciate the extent to which several of the people on this thread are reading the same books and finding the same thoughtful, insightful information in them that I have. It's becoming a real "meeting of the minds" here, isn't it. So glad to be a part of it.