Follow

Scott Adams has a good general rule for situations like this. If you ask a government agency a question and they say “we can’t answer that”, it’s AN ADMISSION OF GUILT! It’s true every damn time!

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1

@gerrybrabant

Armed, with what, exactly?

"'When a mob of armed rioters use force in an attempt to overthrow the United States government, that is domestic terrorism,' Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said, as she turned up the heat on Sanborn and Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen. 'My understanding is prosecutors have not been pushing for the sentencing enhancements available for acts of domestic terrorism.'"

There's a photo circulating, purportedly of one of the Jan 6th participants concealed carrying a desert tan Glock or some such, but as I recall, that individual hasn't been identified.

Not exactly @ScottAdamsSays position, but he does say the burden of proof should always be on the government that what they're doing isn't corrupt. Transparency, he says, is key to proving that.

To the extent that there no adequate justification for "I can't answer that," one has to infer they either don't know, or are hiding something that'd be embarrassing.

Sure, oversight hearings are an opportunity for politicians to grandstand, and generate soundbites, but that still doesn't explain why the FBI's representative didn't just deny there were any FBI agents or confidential informants involved.

Hmm. So Jill Sanborn, who wouldn't answer Cruz's questions, is the FBI's Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch, per UK Daily Mail.

@darulharb

One may generally assume that whenever a bureaucrat or pol speaks into a microphone, the words that follow are some degree of BULLSHIT.

@darulharb
That's not how they operate. They need to keep you wondering. Paranoid.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
QuodVerum Forum

Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.