I'm glad I didn't comment on this aspect of the Revolver story about the January 6 Event. Of course there's plenty to be concerned about as regards the role of federal law enforcement, and of the FBI in particular. However, the claim that the use of the term "unindicted co-conspirators" is intended to conceal government agents and informants is, on the authority of experienced prosecutors and defense attorneys, flatly wrong: "Agents & informants are not included in the definition of unindicted co-conspirators ..."
This 👇🏻is how actual practitioners of federal criminal law (left & right) will see it. Agents & informants are not included in the definition of unindicted co-conspirators & it would be improper for prosecutors to try to “hide” them in that category. https://t.co/w4ojUgJeB8
— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) June 17, 2021
SWC weighs in on this, too, against Robert Barnes. However, I believe that McAdoo Gordon and McCarthy express this better. SWC seems to suggest--probably in a moment of keyboard carelessness--that government agents and informants are ipso facto unable to be part of the conspiracy
A "co-conspirator" must be part of the agreement to commit the criminal object of the conspiracy.
Someone informing the FBI about the conspiracy-- unless it is entirely after the fact--is actually working AGAINST the conspiratorial agreement.
That, of course, is how it's supposed to work. However, UC agents and informants have been known to go overboard and--contrary to instructions--actually cross the line into advancing the conspiracy in ways that would not have occurred but for their actions. That type of conduct will get the case dismissed. This can get factually very complicated, so I'll leave it at that. That issue may very well come up at trial--if trials are held. But the important issue for purposes of the Revolver article is addressed in the tweet above. The UC agents or informants may or may not have behaved improperly--that's a factual issue that will have to be hashed out later based on what is discovered about their participation. However, we can take it as given that no one labeled as an "unindicted co-conspirator" is in fact a government agent or informant. They will be witnesses.
So if the FBI meticulously followed the spirit and letter of the law in a politically charged investigations then it was cool? Guess there's a first time for everything.
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly. Reread what I wrote.
DeleteOkay but can you then explain to us why these particular co-conspirators have gone unindicted whilst many more shall we say less involved in instigation and planning ARE being indicted in this "conspiracy" ? Is this standard prosecutorial practice? I would think it's the opposite of standard. Mark A
ReplyDeleteYes, it can be standard practice--depending on the circs.
DeleteWhat is "the Revolver story"?
ReplyDeleteI suggest you provide a link.
I saw the Revolver story to be based mostly on theoretical speculation so I skipped most of the granular. (Should I have paid more attention to it?)
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, I think it's overall basis / theory of Government (multi agency) involvement in intentional provocateurs in Jan 6th is most likely to be correct.
This is a repeat of past scenarios like the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally, Elohim City and hundreds of smaller cases using informants and agent provocateurs.
The difference being they (the Government at large and NGO's) are getting better at refining their processes of "useful idiots" under the national security state.
My own personal wild speculation is that the government needed to quickly flatten the curve of discontent in the right orientated groups and organizations while striking absolute terror into anyone's ideas about physical gatherings going forward.
Regardless of the cases winding through the courts and what becomes of the results. Political prisoners in our country are becoming more and more mainstream and "normalized".
I see no pathway of incremental change (voting, legislation or judicial action) capable getting us out of where we have fallen. If we focused all of our efforts daily on that the sun would go supernova before we clawed back that level of power.
It's terrifying...
I don't disagree. It's a matter of being accurate, even if terrified.
DeleteMaybe it would have been better if Revolver had labelled them unindicted-unidentified persons. I read the 37 page indictment and what struck me is that they indicted 16 people and there were 20 PERSONS (unidentified) mentioned throughout the indictment. Where some of these people had clearly instigated the actions on Jan 06 (PERSON ONE), lead the group at the capital riot (PERSON TEN) as well as entered the capitol building at the same time as CALDWELL, who was charged, but PERSON TWO was not charged or identified, even though they travelled together from OHIO, shared a hotel room and entered the Capitol building together. PERSON THREE stayed behind as the QRF with the supposed heavy weapons arsenal, should that become necessary. No proof is offered in the indictment that there were any weapons at all, just people saying it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the Whitmer indictment about her kidnapping plot where 3 FBI agents and two CHS infiltrated that group of 14, it strikes me as entirely possible/plausible that the same pattern/tactic could have been used by the FBI for the Jan 06 riot, and that some of these 20 PERSONS - unidentified - could be fulltime FBI agents or a CHS.
The labelling of "unindicted-co-conspirator" might be wrong, but the substance of government fore-knowledge, involvement or instigating actions is not ruled out by that mislabeling.
Correct.
DeleteCNN's Gloria Borger, on the 6 o'clock news with Wolf Blitzer, is going ballistic over this story being covered on what she calls the dark side of the Internet.
DeleteShe called it absurd, outrageous, a lie, they went into a total meltdown over this. Jeff Flake also chimed in on the same wavelength. Whenever CNN stops ignoring a storyline, my take is that there must be some truth to it, if they go into interference mode for the Administration.
This makes perfect sense.
ReplyDeleteBut...
If the revolver analysis is correct and the most aggressive 1/6 actors are not being prosecuted, shouldn't that raise some serious red flags?
Perhaps the revolver article is right on substance but merely wrong on use of labels...?
I fully agree that what's going on is wrong, but we need also to be accurate. It's definitely unhelpful when conservatives fail to do basic homework.
Deleteand this is where it sucks to be a conservative...if we get one "fact" wrong out of 100, "they" get to dis and dismiss our entire case and argument. "They" OTOH, can make all the "mistakes" they want and when pointed out, it's dismissed as nitpicking and the overall argument is allowed to stand and be disseminated. Good example is the death of Brian Sicknick: 1st version: he was murdered by right wing Trumpists on Jan 6; 2nd version: he was severely injured on Jan 6 by right wing Trumpists and died the next day of his wounds; 3rd version: he passed away the next day of a stroke, but Trump is still responsible
ReplyDeleteAnd so it goes, on and on
Read up on Green Beret Jeremy Brown who was approached December 9 by the FBI in Tampa by 2 of 20 FBI agents to spy on the Jan6 event that of course hadn’t happened yet. He recorded the FBI.
ReplyDeleteI used to check out he Revolver more back before the elections... not so much lately. Maybe there big "scoop" for the year. I too read this on Hans twitter feed this morning and he corrected someone who's name escapes me about this exact piece.
ReplyDeleteIn O/T saw an article in the Toronto Star where Canadians who got the AstraZeneca vaccine are not allowed to attend the "Springsteen on Broadway" shows. LOL. Perhaps tit for tat.
We obsess over species of diseased law enforcement and election trees. While the forest is on fire fire with an unfolding Revolution, fanned by communist district attorneys and secretaries of state (along with election software traitors loyal to China).
ReplyDeleteI pray it is God's will the American public's focus takes in the forest fire before the USA goes up in smoke.
I remember that the Watergate attorneys referred to President as an un-indicted co conspirator. So that have done this before.
ReplyDeleteRob S
In re-reading this and the comments over again I'm'a try'n translate this into stupid speak for myself because I am we-todd-did.
ReplyDeleteRevolver wrongly believed, or wrongly attributed "unindicted co-conspirators" to mean FBI/CHS and therefore "hidden". That's factually incorrect, doesn't happen/work that way.
Which if I'm not mistaken, was (more or less) the whole basis for the ah-ha'ism of their news narrative/story.
Mark is pointing out that this is not only wrong but maybe without saying it, damaging to the conservative cause because it is, for a lacking of better terminology, making us look stupid.
I just call that propaganda for effect and site traffic, intentionally stoking the masses in a goose chase, aka Hoft'isum.
The twitter messages really messed up my understanding of what was being conveyed. It was the comment of "accurate" 3-4 times that kept me looking at it.
" damaging to the conservative cause", we are way beyond liberal vs conservative here. We are at leftist revolution vs defend the republic. If you think that is hyperbolic, then by all means continue to, as Neil puts it, "sort through the trees.". Me I'm going to pay attention to how 1. we are sorting ourselves out and 2. how the two sides are positioning themselves.
DeleteMark A
@Mark A
DeleteI don't think that's necessarily hyperbole but I know "leftist revolution vs republic" narrative is a gross over politicization of the issues at hand. I say this because it implies political ideologies and belief narratives over basic facts and evidence.
Where you may see the occasional shifting or redirection of regulation, you never see the abdication of the power to regulate. That has nothing to do with left or right... That's the natural processes of government expansion being exploited by any faction temporary put in charge of it.
I think we would all do better to realize in the realm of govern vs governed we have no "team" other than to pretend there is some better variation of master to bow to.
So, really, what we are saying here is that Revolver should have added a caveat to their story, an extra paragraph if you will, to point out that *ordinarily* or 'the way it's supposed to work' is that govt agents/CI's are not represented in court documents as UCCs, HOWEVER, it is possible in *this* case that the DOJ, desperate to hide their fingerprints all over the 1.6 event, may have misrepresented these people as UCCs when they were in fact undercover agents or informants etc.
ReplyDeleteNow of course we know that DOJ FBI folks would never misrepresent anything to a court or to the public or fail to follow clearly established rules or laws regarding, for ex how you characterize an undercover agent who actively participated in planning and leading an assault on police, so Revolver should have noted that they continue to investigate this oh so unlikely possibility on the minuscule chance that DOJ is covering their tracks with misleading labels in their pleadings.
Boy do I feel better now. Sigh.
Nox
As SWC now points out, those UCCs are likely just cooperating participants. Revolver's breathless leap to conclusions looks to harm patriot credibility at a critical juncture. I pray I'm wrong on that.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Greenwsld’s take:
ReplyDeletehttps://greenwald.substack.com/p/questions-about-the-fbis-role-in