When The FBI Does It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

[Weatherman2020]

Entrapment is a common theme in Fascist States.
The fact no one in the FBI will be punished, let alone prosecuted, confirms the fascist nature of DC these days.

The FBI Says It Thwarted A Plan To Kidnap Michigan’s Governor. The Suspects Say It Was A Setup.

The Michigan kidnapping case is a major test for the Biden administration’s commitment to fighting domestic terrorism — and a crucible for the fierce ideological divisions pulling the country apart.

www.buzzfeednews.com

It Sure Looks Like the FBI Basically Orchestrated the Gretchen Whitmer 'Kidnapping' Plot

redstate.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Gestapo are criminal fucks.

 

[Rogue AI]

Wasn't the 'leader' of that group one of those antifa losers? Another leftwing plot being blamed on the right. How sad.

 

[freyasman]

The only way the FBI is going anywhere is if they're already planning on replacing it with something worse.

 

[colfax_m]

Entrapment is a very high bar. If someone wants to commit a crime, and law enforcement provide them with the means (which is case here) then it’s not entrapment. As long as the government shows that the defendants had their own intent to commit the crime, nothing law enforcement does matters.

 

[Rogue AI]

Entrapment is a very high bar. If someone wants to commit a crime, and law enforcement provide them with the means (which is case here) then it’s not entrapment. As long as the government shows that the defendants had their own intent to commit the crime, nothing law enforcement does matters.

Of course it's entrapment of the crime couldn't be committed without the direction and aid of the FBI.

 

[colfax_m]

Of course it's entrapment of the crime couldn't be committed without the direction and aid of the FBI.

Not entirely true. Providing aid to a criminal does not make it entrapment. The fact that a defendant couldn’t have done it by themselves does not excuse their intent to do so.

 

[Rogue AI]

Not entirely true. Providing aid to a criminal does not make it entrapment. The fact that a defendant couldn’t have done it by themselves does not excuse their intent to do so.

Of course it does, intent means little if there is no possibility to actually commit a crime without the aid of the government. Why do you think the FBI tries to pawn this off on 'informants'? The simple reality is that the informants are agents of the state, therefore their actions and plots become of product of the state. Liberals are clearly sick puppies who hate America and it's citizens.

 

[colfax_m]

Of course it does, intent means little if there is no possibility to actually commit a crime without the aid of the government. Why do you think the FBI tries to pawn this off on 'informants'? The simple reality is that the informants are agents of the state, therefore their actions and plots become of product of the state. Liberals are clearly sick puppies who hate America and it's citizens.

Nope. Intent matters quite a lot. After all, what defense is it to say you definitely wanted to commit a crime but only lacked the means to do so? There’s an interest in the state prosecuting that person because who knows? They may eventually get the means. Your not innocent simply because you’re poor.

As long as the defendants are the ones who decided to commit the crime, they are prosecutable.

 

[Rogue AI]

Nope. Intent matters quite a lot. After all, what defense is it to say you definitely wanted to commit a crime but only lacked the means to do so? There’s an interest in the state prosecuting that person because who knows? They may eventually get the means. Your not innocent simply because you’re poor.

As long as the defendants are the ones who decided to commit the crime, they are prosecutable.

You are advocating thought policing. Without the possibility to physically commit a crime, the crime does not exist. This was not a matter of money, but a matter of reality. The FBI was doing what they do best, creating crimes to make themselves look better.

 

[colfax_m]

You are advocating thought policing. Without the possibility to physically commit a crime, the crime does not exist. This was not a matter of money, but a matter of reality. The FBI was doing what they do best, creating crimes to make themselves look better.

Let’s say the defendants had all the means necessary but the FBI busted them as they rolled their cars up to the house with their firearms intending to kidnap Whitmer.

They’d be arrested and charged without having DONE anything other than intending to commit a crime.

Isn’t that still a thought police?

 

[Rogue AI]

Let’s say the defendants had all the means necessary but the FBI busted them as they rolled their cars up to the house with their firearms intending to kidnap Whitmer.

They’d be arrested and charged without having DONE anything other than intending to commit a crime.

Isn’t that still a thought police?

That didn't happen, once the FBI and their agent of the state injected themselves in this, such concepts become irrelevant.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope. Intent matters quite a lot. After all, what defense is it to say you definitely wanted to commit a crime but only lacked the means to do so? There’s an interest in the state prosecuting that person because who knows? They may eventually get the means. Your not innocent simply because you’re poor.

As long as the defendants are the ones who decided to commit the crime, they are prosecutable.

You are providing the current court interpretation of the law, but obviously the current court interpretation is totally wrong, and lead to the 1993 WTC bombing, where the FBI not only supplied the explosives and truck, but obviously talked the people prosecuted, into the crime. In fact, the main target of the prosecution was a blind cleric who played no part in the bombing at all.

I can tell you that during the anti Vietnam war and civil rights demonstrations I participated in during the 60s, FBI informants were constantly trying to talk me into committing crimes. They were NOT just facilitating an already existing intent.

 

[colfax_m]

That didn't happen, once the FBI and their agent of the state injected themselves in this, such concepts become irrelevant.

Only to illustrate that “thought police” is nothing unusual.

 

[Rigby5]

Let’s say the defendants had all the means necessary but the FBI busted them as they rolled their cars up to the house with their firearms intending to kidnap Whitmer.

They’d be arrested and charged without having DONE anything other than intending to commit a crime.

Isn’t that still a thought police?

Yes that is thought police, and it should not be legal to prosecute an act that never happened.
The prosecution should not be allowed to claim intent without proof of actual acts towards that goal, that were illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope. Intent matters quite a lot. After all, what defense is it to say you definitely wanted to commit a crime but only lacked the means to do so? There’s an interest in the state prosecuting that person because who knows? They may eventually get the means. Your not innocent simply because you’re poor.

As long as the defendants are the ones who decided to commit the crime, they are prosecutable.

Not if they were talked into it by the government agents.
Then they are just passive patsies.

 

[Rogue AI]

Only to illustrate that “thought police” is nothing unusual.

It certainly isn't Constitutional.

 

[colfax_m]

It certainly isn't Constitutional.

Why not? Intent to commit a crime matters. Would you object to their prosecution if they didn’t have the FBI involved but were busted as they drove up to the house ready to kidnap the governor?

 

[Rogue AI]

Why not? Intent to commit a crime matters. Would you object to their prosecution if they didn’t have the FBI involved but were busted as they drove up to the house ready to kidnap the governor?

They would be prosecuted for crimes they actually committed. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the government inventing crimes.

 

[colfax_m]

They would be prosecuted for crimes they actually committed. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the government inventing crimes.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime.

The government didn’t invent the Michigan conspiracy.