Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does this statement make sense?
Twitter ^ | 06/16/2021 | Twitter

Posted on 06/16/2021 11:03:42 AM PDT by Dagny Muriel

"Federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy, despite a baseless suggestion by Tucker Carlson that some co-conspirators of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol were not charged because they were undercover FBI agents"

This is Twitter's fact check/disclaimer or whatever they call it. It show's at top when you click on the "Tucker Carlson" tranding topic.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: censorship; chat; propaganda; twitter; twittsewer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last
What am I missing here? Did I misread this or isn't it contradictory saying that it is the law to prosecute "DESPITE" Carlson statement?

If they want to dismiss his statement or contradict him shouldn't it read:

"Though, Federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy, there is no basis for a suggestion by Tucker Carlson that some co-conspirators of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol were not charged because they were undercover FBI agents"

1 posted on 06/16/2021 11:03:42 AM PDT by Dagny Muriel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

They are probably nit-picking informant vs. agent. It’s in bad faith.


2 posted on 06/16/2021 11:06:04 AM PDT by cdcdawg (It's all so tiresome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

Well, the real point here is that if these undercover informants were FBI agents and they fomented the “insurrection”, then they are guilty of entrapment. In fact whoever let people into the Capitol are guilty of that same charge.


3 posted on 06/16/2021 11:09:07 AM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

If they were FIBbies then they are not ‘cooperating witnesses’ they were part of a SET-UP and that should be illegal.

Would any of these people have gone in there if these ‘cooperating witnesses’ had not urged them on?


4 posted on 06/16/2021 11:10:33 AM PDT by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

Circular logic.

They cannot be charged because .... we say so...............


5 posted on 06/16/2021 11:13:07 AM PDT by Red Badger (You can't wait until life isn't hard anymore before you decide to be happy............. Nightbirde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

ding ding


6 posted on 06/16/2021 11:13:54 AM PDT by pas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

FBI Agent <> Agent of the FBI??? An informant would be an “agent of the FBI” in the common sense of the words. Sorry, Common Sense is not allowed!


7 posted on 06/16/2021 11:13:58 AM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

The conspiracy is on the part of the FBI. The FBI is the law breaker. Jack Dorsey can shove his comments up his ass.


8 posted on 06/16/2021 11:15:16 AM PDT by ConservativeInPA (“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” ― Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel
I would say (if I were being honest, unlike the media):

"Tucker Carlson suggested that some co-conspirators of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol were not charged because they were undercover FBI agents. Because Federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy, Tucker Carlson may or may not be accurate, depending on whether those not charged were indeed FBI agents."

9 posted on 06/16/2021 11:15:30 AM PDT by rlmorel (Leftists are The Droplet of Sewage in a gallon of ultra-pure clean water.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

One more reason why conservatives need to stay active on Twitter - we’re either there, calling out BS, or surrendering the site to liberal trolls.


10 posted on 06/16/2021 11:18:21 AM PDT by Demiurge2 (Define your terms!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

You are right. The Twitter “fact checkers” don’t make any sense.


11 posted on 06/16/2021 11:19:08 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

“Federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy”

What Federal law? Never heard of that one.


12 posted on 06/16/2021 11:25:29 AM PDT by edwinland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

I suspect that the Cabal needed an “Insurrection” to “Seal the Steal”, so the
FBI agents infiltrated groups they hoped to paint as white supremacist
terrorists and then proceeded to plan, lead and foment the “insurrection” as
requested.

It would NOT have happened without their efforts to bring it about.


13 posted on 06/16/2021 11:26:49 AM PDT by EasySt (Say not this is the truth, but so it seems to me to be, as I see this thing I think I see #KAG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel
I find it ironic how dumb and complacent many are. This Twitter statement highlights what the media and tech giants think of the American people.

Unfortunately, I think they have accurately perceived the Idiocracy of the average citizen. They no longer even feel a need to hide their logical fallacies so long as certain key words are used, such as in this example utilizing the word “despite”.

People are inept at full comprehension and solely rely on a few select words to determine what the message is. Most people likely read:
“It is unlawful despite suggestion by tucker Carlson”, rather than seeing the true contextual implications of the sentence.

14 posted on 06/16/2021 11:32:50 AM PDT by Dagny Muriel (NEVER TRUST what you read, hear, or see. NO one in power is trustworthy. Follow the $ for the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

.


15 posted on 06/16/2021 11:36:45 AM PDT by sauropod (Chance favors the prepared mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

I think Tucker is saying the “cooperating witnesses” were *ONLY* not charged because they were with the FBI, IOW if they hadn’t been government agents they would have been charged.

The “fact check” seems to be trying to say that the “cooperating witnesses” are exempt from being charged by dint of their cooperation.


16 posted on 06/16/2021 11:36:52 AM PDT by Little Pig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EasySt; Liz

Well phrased.

But it “is” was it “is not” depending what the meaning of “is” is. Right?


17 posted on 06/16/2021 11:37:50 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (Method, motive, and opportunity: No morals, shear madness and hatred by those who cheat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: edwinland
"What Federal law? Never heard of that one."

Neither have I. I've heard of witnesses being given plea deals for reduced charges, or even no charges, but no law that makes this specific prohibition.
18 posted on 06/16/2021 11:38:41 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dagny Muriel

The statement confirms Tucker Carlson’s report.

Even if it was intended as a denial.


19 posted on 06/16/2021 11:42:43 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion, or satire. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Even if it’s true (which I doubt) that the law prohibits filing “co-conspirator” charges against cooperating witnesses, it does not prohibit other charges being filed, yet none were. All the time, you hear about plea deals for lesser charges in exchange for testimony against others.


20 posted on 06/16/2021 11:48:59 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson