Utopia Talk / Politics / Breakdown of Jan6

Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Fri Jul 09 23:33:07 With some context. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJVMoe7OY0 1)Eugene Goodman is more of a hero than I thought 2)Republicans have a serious "Treason" problem 3)Capitol Hill Police heads deserve alot of blame 4)Trump supporters trample an old lady having a heart attack for the chance to beat police officers. 5)Trump and his band of merry men need to be in prison by 2024
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Jul 09 23:57:11 hmm... i see no violence at all, typical tourist visit... plus it was just Antifa & FBI anyway trying to make Trump look bad ----- ~27:15 is the Ashli Babbitt part, i didn't even know they could see lawmakers fleeing in that same hallway... even more completely justified reason to shoot her when she charges in, so many more should've been killed
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 10 20:17:45 At least one undercover FBI operative was at the Jan 6th rally (freedom plaza) AND entered the Capitol. Interesting.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 10 20:18:01 http://youtu.be/8FueNO_119w
obaminated Member	Sat Jul 10 20:38:08 Lol, this is what we need to focus on. Not the riots in major cities that went on for a year.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 10 21:24:26 In all seriousness All these people who need therapy and shit from the trauma of Jan 6th , but have no problems to the millions of regular folks living in a summer of fear I havnt seen since 1992 riots are hacks.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Jul 10 23:01:16 ugh, you're going to make me listen to that guy who has lied to me the 2 out of 2 times i've seen him... one moment...
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Jul 10 23:15:06 ok, their first note is an undercover agent being present somewhere in the city (& specifically not in the capitol)... who cares the second note, the guy is reading something (while putting up on screen an article that doesn't have what he's reading for some reason)... but anyway, they make a big deal about it being in a restricted zone outside... but it's "later that afternoon" which means -AFTER- the riot... so again who cares if an undercover there, i assume cops all over the place at that point also they are LYING (or their Ryan Reilly source lying & they did no checking) as the "UCE" was NOT FBI... clearly noted as a "Metropolitan Police Department Undercover Employee", there's no way to miss it as noted right in the thing he's quoting, so deliberate lie by Ryan source doc http://sto...ov.uscourts.dcd.232969.1.1.pdf plus the media was up in arms at Tucker & the fraudosphere suggesting the FBI planned & led attack not that denying there could have been any agents in the city or on the scene after it began (although this isn't even evidence of that) 3 for 3 in lying, a perfect record for Saagar
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Jul 10 23:17:30 (i stopped watching at around 5 min mark as they seemed to be talking other stuff, if there was more 'proof' let me know)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Jul 10 23:40:16 oops, i retract my smear of Ryan... that tweet is quoting a Jan 18 interaction that -WAS- by FBI (but that's weeks afterward) no idea, why total liar Saagar is putting that on screen as evidence of a Jan 6 FBI agent... oh, he's a liar so, apologies to Ryan, & an extra 'fuck you' to Saagar so wasn't an FBI agent on Jan 6 (& not particularly relevant even if it was)
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 02:19:18 TW, Not sure why you always seem to have such a hard on for Saagar, but I said operative not agent, clear distinction, the undercover cop was contact with the FBI, so no lie. They clearly explain it was as an under cover FBI employee/informant. The operative was in contact with the FBI. The seperate issue was that Tucker WAS spied upon by the NSA, that happened, its been admitted.They said he was not a target, specifically worded to make it sound otherwise. If the NSA targets X and X talks to Y, then both X and y can be spied on and Y doesn't have to be the target. No lies.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Jul 11 02:21:01 The only explanation for what occurred is that at least some senior DC police folks were, at some level, in on it. Bottom line.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 02:33:42 the only mention of FBI is -after- the attack, it’s completely expected for the FBI to investigate these cult groups after Saagar and girl claim the media was wrong for attacking Tucker’s claim that the FBI helped plan and execute the attack (with shitty evidence) and Saagar’s ‘evidence’ is an undercover metro cop being on scene after the attack (absolutely no indication or reason to believe he participated). This backs Tucker 0 percent. Tucker claiming the NSA spying on him was more bullshit, he failed to note at first he was trying to arrange an interview with Putin. His communication getting picked up then is not shocking, and doesn’t at all suggest they targeted him.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 02:37:55 Ryan Reilly, a senior justice reporter at The Huffington Post, remarked, "The entire basis of this segment is that unindicted co-conspirator = FBI informant, which is anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of federal investigations understands is an absurd premise." Again, not a lie. They are saying an in indicted co conspirator isn't an FBI informant and that the assumption of such is tin hat crazy. But we now know that in at least one case, there was an undercover DC cop informing to the FBI who was present at the rally and the the Capitol. So, it's not crazy,it happened. Now this doesnt mean the FBI orchestrated the riot. We dont know, but its not as if they haven't done similar things in the past nd we have limited info ATM, more everyday. So again, no lies. http://www...m-fbi-was-behind-capitol-riot/ You just have an irrational hatred of journalists who don't tow theb party line.Again both are not Trumpists by any means, and routinely spoken out against him as well.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 02:46:23 " Sun Jul 11 02:33:42 the only mention of FBI is -after- the attack, it’s completely expected for the FBI to investigate these cult groups after" Uhm, NO. That's false.They apparently had been in contact with several people prior to the attack, AND had an undercover DC cop informing the FBI on the day it happened. "Saagar and girl claim the media was wrong for attacking Tucker’s claim that the FBI helped plan and execute the attack (with shitty evidence) and Saagar’s ‘evidence’ is an undercover metro cop being on scene after the attack (absolutely no indication or reason to believe he participated). This backs Tucker 0 percent." False. They themselves say there is ZERO evidence that the FBI orchestrated any of it. What they said was that its not tin hat crazy to think there could be and FBI informant who was present, because there was. The media as listed above by Salon and huffington post ( we both agreenthats left wing media) did say that. The FBI used a DC undercover and infiltrated Jan 6 before and during the riot.That happened.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 02:47:47 Fhappened.Fuck its 1/4 til 4 AM, I only got up to per and take my meds on an empty stomach ( no food 4 hours before or an hour after I take them, pain in the ass)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 11:30:19 Saagar & girl imply the guy was FBI, he was not they imply he participated, there is no reason to think so they imply both quite explicitly to smear the media for being against Tucker's completely unfounded claim FBI helped plan & execute (& it's important that it's FBI, not just any cop... the cult already believes the FBI tried to setup Trump before from his continuous stream of lies... this is yet another attempt to absolve Trump supporters of the attack) ------- and Ryan is right they wouldn't label FBI as 'unindicted co-conspirators' also one of them was quickly shown to be a wife of cultist & not FBI, which throws quite a lot of cold water on the made-up theory to begin with ----- "But we now know that in at least one case, there was an undercover DC cop informing to the FBI who was present at the rally and the the Capitol" we know an undercover DC cop was there after the riot (who cares) & he informed the FBI -AFTER- the attack (who cares) there are probably undercover cops around every day of the year, this Saagar story contradicts the media 0, helps Tucker 0. (and they knew it, or seemed to, they carefully crafted the segment to imply things that are made-up... like putting the Jan -18- FBI 'UCE' conversation which had no relevance, while talking of the MPD 'UCE') so Saagar is total shit once again -------- as to the general Tucker claim, it's not disproven yet, neither are unicorns... but the only basis for Tucker's claim was a sketchy website with very weak evidence (with one person [the wife] already disproving that the un-indicted people had to be FBI), it was absolutely irresponsible for Tucker to float it (& he claimed it definitively at one point) & completely correct for media to call him out on it
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 12:06:02 "Rep Louie Gohmert says that the Sergeant at Arms, on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, turned down the National Guard on Jan 6. He then asks, “You think they were setting things up?”" http://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1414235704914169857 (his claim about Pelosi appears to be made-up shit spread by fraudosphere) 'was all a set-up' is the current narrative, after claiming it was antifa fell through & trying to claim it wasn't violent fell through (although still plenty of cultists believing those first two excuses, not sure a single cultist believe their fellow cultists responsible)
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 12:48:18 "Saagar & girl imply the guy was FBI" Well, he was an FBI employee, just not an agent. They clearly identify that, several times. " they imply both quite explicitly to smear the media for being against Tucker's completely unfounded claim FBI helped plan & execute" Absolutely not, they repeatedly say " there is absolutely no evidence that the FBI had anything to do with orchestrating anything on Jan 6" ( paraphrased, but they repeat it numerous times) Again, they very clearly point out what they "smeared the media" over was insinuating 1. It was insane to say that the FBI was there under cover. 2. That the FBI had done similar acts to Tucker's accusation in the recent past, which is to encourage domestic terrorism. They very literally go oit of their way to clarify their positions numerous times. What you really seem to have an issue with is that the FACTS give credence that its plausible. The FBI had atleast one undercover informant on site that happened to be a DC undercover cop. "and Ryan is right they wouldn't label FBI as 'unindicted co-conspirators'" Why? Again, this undercover cop AFAIK was in contact with people at the riot while working for the FBI PRIOR to the Jan 6th with a fake bible study group. You seem to be against facts that suggest that Tuckers claims are even plausible. And again neither argument is proven. However we do know that the FBI had an employee there at the riots , and was in contact with others prior to Jan 6th while informing to the FBI.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 12:50:29 I know nothing of Gohmert or his claims.
murder Member	Sun Jul 11 12:52:19 "Lol, this is what we need to focus on. Not the riots in major cities that went on for a year." Trying to topple the government and install a dictator is in fact a more serious crime that rioting and looting department stores.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 13:04:18 "Well, he was an FBI employee, just not an agent They clearly identify that, several times. " who is "they"? he's not FBI at all from what i read ---- "Again, this undercover cop AFAIK was in contact with people at the riot while working for the FBI PRIOR to the Jan 6th with a fake bible study group. " i see none of this... the cop encountered the Monkey King bomb-making bible-study guy at the capitol & informed the FBI & that's when the FBI started investigating that group --------- "You seem to be against facts that suggest that Tuckers claims are even plausible." i'm against Saagar's bullshit as it has NOTHING to do w/ any of it while lying that it does ------- also, attacking Tucker on this will ALWAYS be right even in the very extremely unlikely event the FBI did lead the attack, because Tucker cites his evidence (which is shit) yet definitively claims FBI did it just like attacking Trump over bounties will ALWAYS be right even if bounties disproven (which they haven't been, & the NY Times story proven right), as his initial response was irresponsible shit regardless
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 13:15:24 They being Saagaar and Krystal. And from what I know so far, he was a DC cop whom was employed bynthe FBI as an informant. "also, attacking Tucker on this will ALWAYS be right even in the very extremely unlikely event the FBI did lead the attack," That is a cult like mentality. Even if he is right, You think the right thing to do is attack him. Now remember, Tucker is an entertainer, similae to John Oliver who both happen to discuss politics. All they are saying is that the FBI did have a DC cop informing to them on site.Should they lie about that? As for the rest, I'm going to withhold furthwr comment until I look into it and we can nail down the discrepancies of when and where this informant was at.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 13:29:36 "They being Saagaar and Krystal" well they are liars he was a "Metropolitan Police Department Undercover Employee (MPD UCE)" & later introduced the Monkey King to an FBI Undercover Employee (FBI UCE) (& the liars put up the FBI UCE -Jan 18- conversation to confuse their viewers) -------- "Even if he is right, You think the right thing to do is attack him" well he's not shown to be right in any way at all at the moment and so yes it's right to attack him if the New York Times writes an article that Trump raped & killed a girl in 1990 with no real evidence, should they be attacked, or do we wait to see if proof turns up that Trump raped & killed a girl in 1990? how long do we wait for the proof that Trump raped & killed a girl in 1990 before criticizing the New York Times for saying Trump raped & killed a girl in 1990? if they get lucky and proof does come out that Trump raped & killed a girl in 1990 does it make it right for the Times to have claimed it w/ no real evidence? Tucker was irresponsible, nothing will ever change it. The media right to criticize. ------ "As for the rest, I'm going to withhold furthwr comment until I look into it and we can nail down the discrepancies of when and where this informant was at. " that link up there i labeled "source doc" is the court filing where all articles are drawing their information from on this particular story
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 13:34:36 Again, they have not told any lies.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 13:48:25 deliberately mislead massively then they act like this cop contradicts media's criticism of Tucker (it doesn't one bit), they put up that tweet w/ the FBI agent for some reason (happened Jan 18) while talking about the non-FBI guy, & they suggest really meaningful that this undercover regular cop was present... making a point to note that he was inside the restricted area (still outside building) to imply he participated, ignoring the riot has already occurred at that point... it has no meaning at all
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 13:51:23 and you posted: "At least one undercover FBI operative was at the Jan 6th rally (freedom plaza) AND entered the Capitol." just based on the video, so obviously they successfully misled you there's no point to their story other than to mislead, that cop proves absolutely nothing to anyone's narrative, no media claimed there couldn't possibly be undercover cops hanging about
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 14:29:42 http://www...5b_story.html%3foutputType=amp Even the WAPO article says the undercover cop, informing to the FBI, was there at freedomnplaza in the morning of Jan 6 and later in the Capitol.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 14:30:29 Also, see my cite of salon.com and Huffington post.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 14:43:32 i don't have a WAPO subscription, but i suspect the article's source is the same "source doc" i posted the cop was NOT working for the FBI, no factual information says so... he introduced an FBI guy long after and even if he was working for the FBI, it still in no way backs up Tucker, as there's no indication he planned or participated in the attack (which was Tucker's baseless claim & the only thing media railed against him about) you'll have to specifically mention what part of Salon & HuffPo you have a problem with... HuffPo guy is correct they would not label undercover FBI agents as 'un-indicted co-conspirators' as that implies corrupt acts (i've heard an expert confirm it, believe it or don't)... but just deciding they were FBI was & remains crazy, again with one member [the wife] quickly disproving the nonsense theory
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 14:56:09 "and even if he was working for the FBI, it still in no way backs up Tucker, as there's no indication he planned or participated in the attack" Well this agree on, there is no proof the FBI or this guy played any role other than info gatherer on Jan. 6th. However, where the FBI has one guy, they probably had more. I dont get the big distinction that the he wasn't an agent, he informed to the FBI, the fact that he is normally a cop seems like semantics.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 15:10:18 "However, where the FBI has one guy, they probably had more" well they didn't have an FBI guy (at least on this Saagar story) & it's important if he's FBI as the cult thinks the FBI is corruptly against Trump... the whole point of the Tucker story is saying the FBI was setting up Trump and/or his cultists (for a 2nd time as they believe) --------- as i noted in my 'random shit' thread: this is some of the fucking crazy Tucker bit http://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1404956103759302663 Tucker: "...some of the key people haven't been charged... look at the documents. The government calls them unindicted co-conspirators. What does it mean? Well, it means that potentially in every single case, they were FBI operatives." WHAT THE FUCK? yes he says 'potentially'... but jesus what a leap... (& that mysterious 'person 2' he talks of who must be FBI was actually the guys wife, not FBI, not setting him up, so whole dumb theory down the toilet already) [later] Tucker: "they were almost certainly working for the FBI" but even later "this white supremacist insurrection was, by the gov't's own admission in these documents, organized at least in part by gov't agents" no 'almost certainly' or 'potentially's in that last comment yet the documents do NOT admit that at all Tucker = garbage Saagar = garbage
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 15:12:55 if Trump has a bullshit-spewing rally near you, go & ask the cultists who they think is responsible for the Jan 6th attack your answer will be antifa or FBI or whatever their next lie will be
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 15:22:23 also... while whether that cop was FBI is relevant, even more relevant is whether he participated Saagar goes to effort imply both FBI & participation (as that's the only way their story works) but there's no evidence at all of participation & he factually was not FBI thus it demonstrates NOTHING AT ALL against the media criticism of Tucker's reckless bullshit
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sun Jul 11 15:54:17 I don't think "The DC Police" or "The FBI" orchestrated or was in on it. I think leadership at the DC police department had some policy choices, a range of security postures from less secure to more secure. Had it been a BLM protest, they would have ramped up the security, riot control gear on, redundant lines of cops, whole 9 yards. But, hey, these guys are on 'our' side, and it's not the *worst* thing ever if they just happen to get in and screw up the election certifications, so let's go for security posture 2 of 10. Right wing riots/insurrections/whatever will always have the advantage in that members of the security apparatus will always lean to the right (self selection bias) relative to the populations they ostensibly serve. "We're policing our own" is always going to come with a lighter touch, along with the presumption of 'our own' acting in good faith, compared to when it's "them" being policed, etc. Since I mentioned BLM earlier, I guarantee you that less black folks would be shot by cops if they didn't overwhelmingly vote against the conservative party.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 16:16:47 i don't doubt there were DC police sympathetic to Trump's side & his cultists (& there's no question why cops would more favor Trump in the election) however in the specific argument w/ habebe & the Saagar liar's video, you need undercover agents causing & joining the riot while only pretending to be on the side of the rioters
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 21:11:41 TW, Name some journalists you dont think are shit? Tucker is an entertainer who haopens to discuss politics, like Jon Oliver, Rachel maddow and honestly most of Fox, OAN, CNN and MSNBC. The DC cop was informing the FBI. Thus he WAS in the employment of the FBI. Again , his doesn't mean they orchestrated anything. However it does show they have people that were on the ground prior to the rally. That said a DC metro cop operates under FEDERAL authority anyway (likenthe FBI), its another FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. So basicially one agency used another s officer as an informant, I imagine it happens all the time. so again your big complaint seems to be is to not feed the trolls (Tucker's) even if that means not admitting the truth because it gives credence to what is likely a false narrative, but it is plausible.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 21:13:32 Again, Saagar didnt lie. This federal officer informed to the police. I guess the question is when was he in contact with the FBI, but regardless , still a federal officer, like an FBI agent.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 21:15:58 That said, Im sure we will find out more.Probably not anything worthwhile from Pelosis legion of doom though. Im sure you would agree with Sagaar when he called Trumps big tech lawsuit a grift yesterday....
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 21:17:17 Also, if you want to talk about misleading, the NSA claimed Tucker was never a target of their spying. HOWEVER, they worded it very carefully, because they forgot to mention they did record his phone calls.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 21:29:19 “The DC cop was informing the FBI. Thus he WAS in the employment of the FBI“ he was not there on behalf of the FBI, and he informed -after- and my complaint is Saagar misled about him to smear the media when it has zero point zero to do with media claims against Tucker let’s forget the FBI part as you seem determined to link him, the more relevant part is absolutely no reason to think he participated which is entirely necessary to even remotely back Tucker (and attack media who attacked Tucker) —— as for journalists, no one on CNN is like Tucker, but yes he is an entertainer and a court has ruled nobody believes what he says... but he’s also the top-rated show on the top-rated ‘news’ network and people actually -do- believe what he says... after Tucker ran that segment the claim blew up all over the fraudosphere, and its baseless (and was disproven within a day as far as the revealed wife that he goes on and on about as one of the ‘almost certain’ FBI agents) and Saagar is shit too, you can tell just from the tone of the show (plus I’ve thoroughly debunked his claims here even if you can’t see it) there are plenty of journalists who at least -try- not to deliberately deceive Jake Tapper probably votes D, but I get no sense of deliberate deception Chris Wallace probably votes R, but I get no sense of deliberate deception (although don’t watch him much as on a garbage network)
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 21:30:27 Or here is newsweeks "Fact check", talk about misleading. "The narrative started with a June 14 report by conservative website Revolver News. The story says there's a "strong possibility" the federal government had "undercover agents or confidential informants embedded within the so-called militia groups" that were seeking to obstruct the Senate certification of the 2020 election results. The Instagram post linked to a Tatum report post that recapped the Revolver News story. USA TODAY reached out to Tatum Report for comment After the article was published, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Republican lawmakers and social media users amplified it across platforms. Facebook users have shared an open letter from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in which he demands FBI Director Christopher Wray "fully disclose the role and involvement of FBI operatives during the January 6th Capitol riot." Other users shared a clip of Carlson's June 15 show, during which he said "FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6." But that theory relies on a false assumption: that anyone identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in charging documents is a government agent. " ". The story says there's a "strong possibility" the federal government had "undercover agents or confidential informants embedded within the so-called militia groups" that were seeking to obstruct the Senate certification of the 2020 election" So, the Federal government DEFINITLEY had undercover law enforcement officers at the rally spot prior to the rally, at the rally and later in the Capitol. For fact checkers they seem to have dropped the ball, because this is an undisputed FACT That they forgot to mention. As for the co conspirators bit, they claim that is the only way the federal government had undercover officers there. Now whether or not this DC cop was listed as a co conspiriitor, I jave no idea.But he was there under authority of the federal government and honestly, Trump either knew or legally should have been informed of his presence, considering he had AFAIK the highest authority over that police officer...I could be wrong about that though.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 21:51:49 "Now whether or not this DC cop was listed as a co conspiriitor" i would guess definitely not as there's no indication he participated at all... NONE NONE NONE, which is 100% necessary in Saagar's narrative also you're now battling against the Revolver News article, not Tucker's version of the story, what Tucker said was crazy bullshit... i mean "almost certainly" FBI? NOPE now i don't know if any -informants- were among the Proud Boys or Oathkeepers but Krazy-8 was an informant & still was selling meth, so doesn't mean much none of it backs Tucker unless the informants or agents helped plan & execute the attack (w/ FBI knowledge)... they wouldn't be 'unindicted' if rogue operatives, the point (fraudosphere narrative w/ no factual basis) is they are tricking cultists into invading the Capitol
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 21:53:08 ...i would also guess definitely not as they do NOT list undercover agents as unindicted co-conspirators ever. period.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 22:19:42 " i would guess definitely not as there's no indication he participated at all... NONE NONE NONE, which is 100% necessary in Saagar's narrative" No its not, as he goes outnof his way to say ther is currently ZERO evidence that this guy took part in any orchestrating, but that in other cases of domestic terror the FBI had in the past pushed people to commit such acts (mostly young Muslim men) Your reading into his statements what you want to hear. As for Tucker, no one here ( myself included) denies Tucker's hyperbole and outright craziness. He may jave gone too far, but it doesnt mean that a federal officer wasn't undercover and at some point was informing to the FBI, I'm not certain when his relationship with the FBI began, it seems to make sense federal agencies talk and intermingle, especially in localized situations. "none of it backs Tucker unless the informants or agents helped plan & execute the attack " Mostly true. Again its clearly been stated that so far we have absolutely zero evidence that that happened. However the opposing narrative had been that no FBI/federal undercover were there during and prior to the riot. We now know of atleast one case that he was there working, we just dont think he did anything more than gather Intel (talk/observe) I'm not defending Tucker, his job is literally getting people worked up to drive ratings, extreme levels of hyperbole are to be expected. And yes, we should take his claims with a grain of salt, HOWEVER, if they turn out to be true, even partially we should acknowledge and investigate that. And even then, the good lies are based around mostly truthful events. The best lies add to that A narrative people WANT to beleive. And some level of things that cant be proven true or false. But we still shouldn't deny a small truth (undercover FBI informants were there) to not feed a possibly* greater lie (that they orchestrated it)
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 22:19:43 " i would guess definitely not as there's no indication he participated at all... NONE NONE NONE, which is 100% necessary in Saagar's narrative" No its not, as he goes outnof his way to say ther is currently ZERO evidence that this guy took part in any orchestrating, but that in other cases of domestic terror the FBI had in the past pushed people to commit such acts (mostly young Muslim men) Your reading into his statements what you want to hear. As for Tucker, no one here ( myself included) denies Tucker's hyperbole and outright craziness. He may jave gone too far, but it doesnt mean that a federal officer wasn't undercover and at some point was informing to the FBI, I'm not certain when his relationship with the FBI began, it seems to make sense federal agencies talk and intermingle, especially in localized situations. "none of it backs Tucker unless the informants or agents helped plan & execute the attack " Mostly true. Again its clearly been stated that so far we have absolutely zero evidence that that happened. However the opposing narrative had been that no FBI/federal undercover were there during and prior to the riot. We now know of atleast one case that he was there working, we just dont think he did anything more than gather Intel (talk/observe) I'm not defending Tucker, his job is literally getting people worked up to drive ratings, extreme levels of hyperbole are to be expected. And yes, we should take his claims with a grain of salt, HOWEVER, if they turn out to be true, even partially we should acknowledge and investigate that. And even then, the good lies are based around mostly truthful events. The best lies add to that A narrative people WANT to beleive. And some level of things that cant be proven true or false. But we still shouldn't deny a small truth (undercover FBI informants were there) to not feed a possibly* greater lie (that they orchestrated it)
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 22:38:00 Here is my personal opinion. I think Tucker is overplaying his hand for ratings. I do not beleive it likely that the FBI or other federal agencies conspired with the intent to cause the Jan 6 riot. I do beleive the most likely scenario is as follows, ut to clarify we dont have proof of this. I think these agencies had infiltrated several of these pro Trump groups involved and have been for some time. I think they Most likely targeted desperate individuals within such groups(like the monkey king AKA fi duong) and in their overzealous nature pushed and encouraged them to commit acts they were on the fence of committing and pushed them over the fence, as they have been known to do in the past.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jul 11 22:49:55 "However the opposing narrative had been that no FBI/federal undercover were there during and prior to the riot." there is no opposing narrative that denies an undercover cop could've been present around the capitol & talking to cultists after the riot which are the -only- things established by Saagar (despite his effort to imply more, by putting up the irrelevant FBI agent tweet, & highlighting he was in a restricted area (outside bldg)... but ignoring that's after the riot) find me an anti-Tucker article where this cops mere presence outside contradicts the story ----------- "We now know of at least one case that he was there working, we just dont think he did anything more than gather Intel (talk/observe) " again, no media story claims this couldn't have happened... -participating- in the riot is absolutely key ----------- "HOWEVER, if they turn out to be true, even partially we should acknowledge and investigate that" this cop's existence doesn't make it partially true... it's zero. exactly zero, not even slightly more than zero. Tucker made the claim, fairly definitively at the start then explicitly definitively by the end, and yet he had NOTHING even remotely close to proof (in fact quickly proven wrong on one person). ---------------- "undercover FBI informants were there" still not established (at least this cop in question)... but not as significant as above... him coordinating w/ FBI -after- doesn't mean he was there on behalf of FBI... but again, participation is the far more -necessary- element ================ just listen to the Tucker clip, it's self-evident bullshit in now knowing 'person 2' is a wife, although was fucking nutty on its own & an undercover cop outside observing cultists in no way makes it wrong to attack Tucker, it has no overlap whatsoever to his crazy ass claims
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 23:15:18 "there is no opposing narrative that denies an undercover cop could've been present around the capitol & talking to cultists after the riot " The timeline is clear, the federal agent under cover spoke with monkey king in the morning, prior to the rally. "find me an anti-Tucker article where this cops mere presence outside contradicts the story" I posted 2 articles that claimed it was crazy to even suspect the FBI would do such a thing.His presence gives them the means, I wont argue motive because that's innthe eye of The beholder. "again, no media story claims this couldn't have happened... -participating- in the riot is absolutely key" To prove Tucker's point , yes. Im not arguing he is right, I'm arguing its plausible. Again, I dont beleive his narrative to be what happened, rather the truth I think* is somewhere in the middle. You give greater leewaynin arguments of the left than the right, I thinknthats fair to say. You see words like "mabey/could have etc." As "technically covering their ass" But when the left says there is no evidence at all the FBI was involved, it should clearly be pointed out that under cover federal agents were there posing as pro Trumpers, leaving that out is misleading.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 23:16:07 But yes, Tucker blows shit up ratings, no argument there.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 11 23:49:16 Sort of like his spying claims, the NSA was misleading , but Tucker over played his hand by saying it was to take down his show. Did they spy on him? Absolutely. Was the goal to tale down his show? I dont think so. They did however illegally fix him, he was in talks to interview Putin ( as a million other western journalists have) they spied on his conversations after that, already a little dubious. But then they leaked that info and his name, totally illegal and corrupt.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jul 12 01:06:00 Tucker’s claim being “plausible” isn’t that relevant... he used words like “almost certainly” then flat out claimed the docs showed it, when they do nothing of the sort (and the newly revealed Monkey King cop is not supporting evidence at all) Tucker was wholly irresponsible, nothing will ever change that media having a problem with it was appropriate, nothing will ever change that if he wants to be Alex Jones, get off what pretends to be a news network and Saagar’s show was trying to score points by making up a strawman (that media claimed no undercover cops could even be in the area) and then shooting it down with lots of deception (zero reason to put up the much later FBI conversation instead of the text he read showing it was a metro cop and a clear attempt to imply he participated)
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 02:27:53 "if he wants to be Alex Jones, get off what pretends to be a news network" Again both tuckwr and maddow have recently been legally declared entertainment show host and not journalists. They are in a grey area, but far less funny than Jon Oliver and the king of political sit down stand up comedians Jon Stewart. If it's plausibility isnt an issue, than him claiming it to be the case isn't all that crazy. Now again, he over played his hand for ratings, much like Maddow, entertainment and ratings first , integrity is almost non existent. You yourself have followed the Russia craze. Basically that Trump conspired with Kremlin folks in order to steal the 2016 election, then followed by a whole spawn of other nonsense based off that claim. For me this doesnt seem very different.Just as of yet** far less studied.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 02:29:56 http://www...mation-suit-mcdougal-trump.amp "Not a credible news source"
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 02:36:28 And Maddows ruling http://gre...t-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers Basically the judges claim is similar in both cases ( entirely seperate cases) They claim that in both cases a normal person wouldn't think these shows are normal news, but an exploitation and hyperbole meant for entertainment and not credible sources of news by themselves.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jul 12 09:16:02 a judge ruling something isn't that helpful when the viewers -definitely- believe him... the cultists all over accepted it, & the cult congresspeople came out demanding FBI reveal its involvement, etc let's replace "FBI" w/ "space aliens" in everything Tucker said (it has as much sound basis)... it's totally fucked up he said it (& not admitting as wild speculation) in his position on what viewers think is a news network (& the top network for that side of the aisle) here's all i'll give you... if any media said it's -impossible- that the FBI helped plan & execute the attack, that would be incorrect. But saying Tucker's claims are baseless or lies seem fair to me (which is what i saw)... he reported something as true or 'almost certainly' true, when there was nothing suggesting that (w/ his lead example being instantly disproven)... it in fact was 'almost certainly' the gullible cultists Trump lied to over & over & over who planned & executed the attack yet the cult has been given numerous other explanations (all based on nothing) that they now believe
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 15:38:17 TW, Well, the FBI should explain its full involvement, why is that a bad thing? I think your fear is this. Lets say the FBI had 10 agents there, observing, but not participating. But they have hid this fact so far, Trumpists will forever beleive they orchestrated it and even a fair amount of folks in the middle will question it. The anti Trump cult will always side with the any group over Trumpian versions of the story.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 15:40:27 Anyway, just to clarify again 1. I am not arguing Tucker is right. 2. I've gven my thoughts on my *personal opinion* to what I think most likely happened, and they are far from Tucker's Hyperbolic rhetoric.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 15:48:10 Oops 3. I will say his claim that the FBI "almost certainly" orchestrated it is an exxageration. BUT it's not crazy to suspect that. Arguably they had an inside man there ( time.table.arguments), at the very least a federal agent was undercover, and that was hidden for 6 months. Also, our alphabet boys are known to lie and mislead the public as standard practice. And they have also been known to have encite similar acts in the past. The crazy part about his statement is the "almost certainly" IMHO, realistically its more like "Its very plausible, but lacking proof" But again, that's his job.Maddow got away with far worse really claiming that OAN was "literally being financially funded by Kremlin"
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 15:55:14 There is a greater plausibility that the FBI was involved than Russia had bounties on US troops.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jul 12 16:31:13 "at the very least a federal agent was undercover, and that was hidden for 6 months" an undercover cop being present in the area has no meaning, they have no reason to confess it out of the blue (& doubtful they want to advertise where they have undercover cops) & the FBI planning & executing an attack on the in -session Capitol is not "very plausible" either... it would be an extreme surprise (except for the cult who now fully believes it based on bullshit) & "lacking proof" would be 'lacking any indication whatsoever' sure the FBI can report their doings (& they probably already have)... is the cult going to believe it? nope, the FBI are deep state liars who always go after Trump... (you just posted "our alphabet boys are known to lie and mislead the public as standard practice" for that matter) Marjorie Greene said sure she'd believe the FBI didn't do it "if they can prove it", how do you prove you didn't do a thing you didn't do i guess in this case, the cultists being charged are welcome to try to claim their fellow cultists are FBI... so technically it should come out in the proceedings, not that Tucker or anyone else in the fraudosphere is ever going to note it (well, they'll note the accusations, not when it's disproven) once you toss out the bullshit, it sticks (at least w/ these cultists) & like Trump, they only believe that which they want to be true Tucker should've known better, and he's doing this shit at a high rate, no way it was just a mistake... not that he's apologized for it, i'm sure he still sticks by it
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 18:43:23 "an undercover cop being present in the area has no meaning, they have no reason to confess it out of the blue (& doubtful they want to advertise where they have undercover cops)" Well considering that people are claiming undercover federal agents from the FBI are involved in the orchestration it seems valid to say who was there. You keep calling him a cop, but I think that downplays that he is a federal officer. Admittedly DC metro are in a wierd place where they are half local cops but who act under federal authority. If anything hiding the matter for so long at the very least gives fuel to the fire of conspiracy. " & the FBI planning & executing an attack on the in -session Capitol is not "very plausible" either... it would be an extreme surprise" But a sitting potus doing that is plausible? The FBI has a history of enticing terrorism domestic and abroad. Everyone knew this wouldn't change the government of the US and we would have a new king with horns on his head and war paint. As for trusting the alphabet boys (FBI,CIA,NSA, DEA etc.) I dont think we have to list just the times they've been caught losing and breaking the law. If any non government entity did such acts, we would label them a terrorist orginization. The NSA was regularly spying on everyday Americans ILLEGALLY not that many years ago.So absolutely we should take what they say with a grain of salt. He'll, look at the NSA statement 2 weeks ago about Tucker. They said he was never a target of spying, legally true. But they very well left out that they were spying on him, recording conversations and then ILLEGALLY leaked his info, but we shouldn't be suspicious of their actions? They should fully disclose all their actions involving Jan 6 etx. "once you toss out the bullshit, it sticks (at least w/ these cultists" Like muh Russia? What should Tucker have known? Why should he apologize? Has Maddow appologized? What makes one any worse than the other, they both deal in entertaining conspiracy theories who their followers beleive.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jul 12 19:22:09 "Well considering that people are claiming undercover federal agents from the FBI are involved in the orchestration..." based on nothing & coming out of nowhere -------- "You keep calling him a cop, but I think that downplays that he is a federal officer" he's a cop in the Metropolitan Police Department, i'm sure he was acting as a cop would... i'm sure he turned the Monkey King group over to an FBI agent to investigate further, as his job is being a metro cop --------- "If anything hiding the matter for so long at the very least gives fuel to the fire of conspiracy." they weren't 'hiding' it... are you shocked some of the cops were undercover? they knew a mob of cultists coming to the Capitol, seems prudent to have some around and this conspiracy theory came out of nowhere based on crazy assumptions (that were immediately disproven [wife]) ------------- "But a sitting potus doing that is plausible?" w/ that 'potus', actually yes... although i don't think he helped plan it, yet i'm completely positive he was happy to see it occur (although he wished they didn't look so scruffy) & he's absolutely responsible for the misinformation packed to the brim in the cultists & for whipping up their anger w/ lies --------- my point on your distrust of the FBI (& the cults complete distrust based on Trump's total bullshit) is what good does them denying do? the cult won't believe it -------- "Like muh Russia?" the stories were not as plain made-up as this one... "hmmm 'unindicted'? must be FBI"... in fact the stories mostly true (but i imagine you could find one that turned out not to be... though i doubt you'd find any w/ as definitive of claims as Tucker made that had such little basis) ---------- "What should Tucker have known? " that "unindicted co-conspirator" is not "almost certainly" FBI? "Why should he apologize?" his first key subject turned out to be the wife... did he even tell his viewers? 'i must apologize to my viewers for making a batshit crazy leap that was quickly disproven by people looking into it only briefly... and for stating shit as fact that isn't remotely true... and for being an asshole deceiver so many other times... in fact since my lawyers had to argue in court that nobody actually believes me, i should resign immediately as you gullible idiots do believe me... bye all forever' (i don't know anything about Maddow, i don't see her mentioned by either side in my feeds)
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 22:25:02 "based on nothing & coming out of nowhere" So, a sitting potus who said it would be a good thing to get along with Russia, is cause for concern. But the feds not admitting for 6 months they had info about the Jan 6th riot, that's very normal, no cause for concern, but it was enough for congressman to call for impeachment...that makes no sense. "he's a cop in the Metropolitan Police Department, i'm sure he was acting as a cop would... i'm sure he turned the Monkey King group over to an FBI agent to investigate further, as his job is being a metro cop" He is a federal officer, similar to an FBI agent, they derive their authority from the house and Congress. It is 100% true to say there was an undercover federal officer/agent investigating the Jan 6th rally, long before there was a riot, they withheld that info do 6 months. That isn't just "out of nowhere".At the very least it is cause for investigation. "the stories were not as plain made-up as this one... "hmmm 'unindicted'? must be FBI"..." Again, undercover federal agents who presence was hidden from their bosses ( legally elected bosses) is strange. " that "unindicted co-conspirator" is not "almost certainly" FBI?" I guess so , but again federal.officers whos presence was hidden from those higher in command sounds like he wasn't TOO far off. But yes people like Tucker and Maddow blow things out of proportion and out right make shit up, honestly they should require some sort of disclaimer since they cant be legally held.responsible for slander/libel etc.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 22:25:02 "based on nothing & coming out of nowhere" So, a sitting potus who said it would be a good thing to get along with Russia, is cause for concern. But the feds not admitting for 6 months they had info about the Jan 6th riot, that's very normal, no cause for concern, but it was enough for congressman to call for impeachment...that makes no sense. "he's a cop in the Metropolitan Police Department, i'm sure he was acting as a cop would... i'm sure he turned the Monkey King group over to an FBI agent to investigate further, as his job is being a metro cop" He is a federal officer, similar to an FBI agent, they derive their authority from the house and Congress. It is 100% true to say there was an undercover federal officer/agent investigating the Jan 6th rally, long before there was a riot, they withheld that info do 6 months. That isn't just "out of nowhere".At the very least it is cause for investigation. "the stories were not as plain made-up as this one... "hmmm 'unindicted'? must be FBI"..." Again, undercover federal agents who presence was hidden from their bosses ( legally elected bosses) is strange. " that "unindicted co-conspirator" is not "almost certainly" FBI?" I guess so , but again federal.officers whos presence was hidden from those higher in command sounds like he wasn't TOO far off. But yes people like Tucker and Maddow blow things out of proportion and out right make shit up, honestly they should require some sort of disclaimer since they cant be legally held.responsible for slander/libel etc.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jul 12 22:34:58 "But the feds not admitting for 6 months they had info about the Jan 6th riot" what are you talking about? this cop was deployed that day to do cop things... he met the Monkey King for the first time that day --------- "Again, undercover federal agents who presence was hidden from their bosses" there's no hiding... & he was a cop, that would've come as no surprise to any of them... ---------- i feel like we're getting farther apart rather than reaching some agreement we can reconvene after Trump's violent criminals are convicted to see if their lawyers managed to shift the blame to any confirmed FBI agents (i bet no)
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 12 23:08:34 "what are you talking about? this cop was deployed that day to do cop things... he met the Monkey King for the first time that day" Well, we actually domt yet know WHAT he was there to do. Doesnt it seem like Trump ( the then sitting potus) should have been informed? Perhaps certain members of Congress? Im fine with agreeing to jabe varied points of view on this limited info we have, and reconvene once we find put more.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Jul 12 23:46:08 "Doesnt it seem like Trump ( the then sitting potus) should have been informed? Perhaps certain members of Congress? " in no way whatsoever... you're finding a lot more special about this guy (or girl) than is implied by anything i'm sure there were lots of uniformed metro cops as well as multiple undercover metro cops & i'm sure it surprises no one nor would they need informed
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 13 00:16:30 [ep]: "I guarantee you that less black folks would be shot by cops if they didn't overwhelmingly vote against the conservative party." That sounds like the social media "systemic racism" hot take; it's missing a big component of true causality which sinks the entire argument: it's not about who people vote for, it's about how they behave. BLM riots were not met with high levels of force because they vote DNC. BLM riots were met with high levels of force because predictably, when the sun set, the riots and looting began. BLM riots were a behavioral mechanism: people dressed for a fight and acted very obviously in a criminal capacity. The "systemic" hot take does not function because, in reality, a shop-keeper can see the difference between a buttoned up citizen with head held high of any race being a good shopper versus someone rolling into a store with incredibly suspicious behavior (head down, sweating, smelly, evasion of eye contact, twitchiness, baggy clothing, facial features disguised, etc.) which automatically flags that they're a likely shoplifter. If that behavior happens to vote a certain way, you would be observing a downstream factor. I.e., criminals behave in a certain way, and police respond to criminality. It is incidental and after-the-fact if those criminals also happen to vote a certain way. So what you've illustrated was in effect that you think that DNC voters are less likely to know how to behave less criminally, *not* that police target DNC voters. Even when we make the leap to the Capitol riot and try to say, "Aha! They were dressed for a fight too!" we would be lying to ourselves to say that putting on a flack jacket indicates criminal behavior. The reality is that most of the people at the Capitol riot had no clue how to behave criminally. We're not talking about Antifa, who use CIA crowd tactics to make sure that they're not traceable (no cell phones, specific people covering specific sectors, faces always covered, actors who sort out and remove infiltrators, agitators who push useful idiots into incriminating actions, etc.), we're talking mostly about people who do not know how to get away with crimes who were trying to be criminal and found themselves in over their heads. The fact that so many people brought cell phones, had no disguises, and took selfies should be a huge giveaway that these people do not know how to get away with criminal enterprises, whereas BLM and Antifa agitators know because they've been practicing for years. One thing that law-abiding citizens take for granted is that they do not truly know know how to be criminals because often people without street smarts do not know how to read the signs of criminality. They will see a bank robber with a gun and think that a gun is all that it takes to rob a bank, but they will forget the planning, the masking, the attire, and a thousand other giveaways that became second nature to the lifelong criminal. This relates to a problem of social media hot takes: common people watching police encounter videos lack the perceptual skills to see the situation as it actually occurred. Like easily fooled people at a magic show, they will see the misdirection while not noticing the critical factors. Do not let social media hot takes disable this critical perception. Police response is most often geared towards the likelihood of criminality, not some kind of tribal/"systemic" protection. The DNC likes to push the latter narrative because it serves the DNC to employ this fallacy of perceptions — to have citizens who ignore their own criminal symptoms while blaming other factors.
Habebe Member	Tue Jul 13 03:39:15 "in no way whatsoever... you're finding a lot more special about this guy (or girl) than is implied by anything" He is a federal officer who was working undercover at Trumps rally, without his knowledge? That doesnt seem strange to you? Like a call to the WH or secret service, like hey BTW we will have undercover observing for strange characters. If the FBI or CIA had undercover officers following Biden or Kamalas rallies, wouldnt it be odd to inform their security detail unless something queer was going in? "i'm sure there were lots of uniformed metro cops as well as multiple undercover metro cops & i'm sure it surprises no one nor would they need informed" Again, Im sure its normal to talk to the security detail and say we're going to have x ampunt of officers there at your disposalnif needed.
Habebe Member	Tue Jul 13 03:56:54 Sonthe idea that the Capitol police helped orchestrate Jan. 6th got a huge boost in the way of incentives. They just got a 2 billion payday for purchasing US military surveillance equipment apparently used with blimps? That's a pretty big incentive.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Jul 13 12:09:52 "He is a federal officer who was working undercover at Trumps rally, without his knowledge? That doesnt seem strange to you? " well first off, there's no indication he was at Trump's rally... he briefly spoke to the Monkey King first around Freedom Plaza (a few blocks from rally) then 'later in the afternoon' on the steps & that's the sum total of what is known about his actions that day (neither remotely suggest he participated, nor that the president/congress needed to be aware of his existence... & congress probably -does- know there are undercover cops around, the building (& many others around) meant to have high security, there should be all sorts of measures) ---- "Again, Im sure its normal to talk to the security detail and say we're going to have x amount of officers there at your disposal if needed. " not relevant here as noted above, but who says Trump's team wasn't informed of all measures at his rally?... i imagine secret service handled the rally security but maybe other cops too & with full knowledge, nothing suggests any hiding ------------- "That's a pretty big incentive." you're just finding reasons they -could- have done it (not evidence at all) my point from the start was Tucker an asshole & Saagar an asshole. Tucker wasn't just speculating w/ reasons it -could've- happened (which still would be wrong in his position) but flat out saying it happened with TOTAL SHIT evidence. & Saagar taking an absolutely meaningless person to suggest maybe some truth to Tucker so media wrong to go after him... a mountain out of a flat plane (not even a molehill, as that cop has literally no relevance). if you want to wildly speculate, that's your right... at the moment NO indication of it & if Tucker wants to inappropriately wildly speculate, he should make it abundantly clear, yet did the opposite
Habebe Member	Tue Jul 13 14:33:07 -Perhaps a few blocks from the rally, perhaps at the rally, regardless, to goal seems to be to observe the rally/attendants.They are pretty vague on information. "not relevant here as noted above, but who says Trump's team wasn't informed of all measures at his rally?... " It possible.Id think if Trump knew something he would have spoke by now about it. "you're just finding reasons they -could- have done it (not evidence at all)" True, but motive is important, this is a big motivator. Sagaar didnt lie, nor mislead. You just seem to have a hard on for anyone who doesn't work for the DNC. Be mad at Tucker all you want, but you should also be mad at Jon Oliver and Rachel maddow who do the same.shit.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Jul 13 14:50:55 "Id think if Trump knew something he would have spoke by now about it." Trump will never know anything about anything... although in this case, no, there is absolutely no reason to personally inform Trump of the minutia of how they are securing the rally (not that this cop was even known to be at the rally) & he certainly wouldn't have paid attention even if they did i don't watch Jon Oliver or Rachel Maddow... i have no idea what Oliver's ratings are but i'm 100% certain Tucker is way higher than Maddow as he's #1 on cable news networks thus definitely poisoning more minds even if Maddow lies/misleads as much (though i doubt she does) Saagar absolutely misled, the whole point of the segment is suggesting while Tucker not proven, that media went too far in criticism citing -this- cop (with deliberate deception about him too) yet he proves zero... flat plane... nada... zip... find any media article where his presence contradicts the article's claims
Habebe Member	Tue Jul 13 15:23:05 Round and round we go....agree.to disagree.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: