Bunch of Idiots Arrested for Plotting to Kidnap Gov Whitmer

[byco42]

Whitmer is the sinister one here? Are you for real?

If she is withholding that she knew about the plot and portrays that it was all a big surprise, what would you call it? You are not surprised that she was ignorant of the entire thing?

Question 3 is easy: to uncover and catch as many as possible while you think you've still got time.

They were all pegged 8 weeks ago. “While you think you still got time?” Time for what? To let the plot actually happen?

I don't believe this for a second. His filter is working overtime. He has a narrative in his head that he filters everything through; it's just different from how most people filter stuff.

Do you think it’s ok to hold politicians responsible for the actions of the citizens?

 

[Gulo Blue]

If she is withholding that she knew about the plot and portrays that it was all a big surprise, what would you call it? You are not surprised that she was ignorant of the entire thing?

All I've read was her statement, and I don't see whatever feigned shock you're seeing. And even if it were there, I don't see the sinister plot. If she was shocked weeks ago, had to keep it secret for a while, and played up the shock when she finally could talk about it, that would be entirely normal. People do that all the time.

They were all pegged 8 weeks ago. ?While you think you still got time?? Time for what? To let the plot actually happen?

Do we know everyone was pegged? Do we know when the FBI felt confident no one else was involved? I don't.

Do you think it?s ok to hold politicians responsible for the actions of the citizens?

Depends entirely on the details from case to case. If the politician asks who will rid them of this troublesome monk, then yes.

 

[byco42]

Like I said, she DID know about the plot. Link.

And she turned her announcement of it into a campaign diatribe. And never indicated that she was aware of the conspiracy during the initial address. Disingenuous to the core. But, she’s a high-level politician, so, it’s part of the job description.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Like I said, she DID know about the plot. Link.

And she turned her announcement of it into a campaign diatribe. And never indicated that she was aware of the conspiracy during the initial address. Disingenuous to the core. But, she?s a high-level politician, so, it?s part of the job description.

Then why reveal it now?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Then why reveal it now?

Why reveal what now?

 

[byco42]

All I've read was her statement, and I don't see whatever feigned shock you're seeing. And even if it were there, I don't see the sinister plot. If she was shocked weeks ago, had to keep it secret for a while, and played up the shock when she finally could talk about it, that would be entirely normal. People do that all the time.

I never mention “feigned shock.” But I question why she omitted that she was aware of the plot. Her language in the statement suggests to me that she was unaware, when, that actually is not the case at all. I also wonder when this address was written, or at least initiated. Forgive me; I’m skeptical of government, with due cause, I believe. It’s rather curious that a kidnapping announcement can morph into a “we’re all in this together” address that pins the blame of the plot on president Trump.

Do we know everyone was pegged? Do we know when the FBI felt confident no one else was involved? I don't.

I read the affidavit. I suggest you do as well. The militia group was under surveillance as early as March.

Depends entirely on the details from case to case. If the politician asks who will rid them of this troublesome monk, then yes.

Well Trump is not Henry I and Whitmer is not Thomas Becket.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why reveal what now?

If there's some big political benefit to pretending that she didn't know yesterday, then why admit she knows today? What's the sinister plot behind withholding that information for only 24 hours?

 

[byco42]

Then why reveal it now?

Why not reveal it initially? That?s the question. To gain additional sympathy and support, I expect.

But why now? So she can go on CNN and blast the Trump administration, it appears.

?Of course, we know every time that this White House identifies me or takes a shot at me, we see an increase in rhetoric online, of violent rhetoric, and so there?s always a connection and certainly, it?s something we?ve been watching but this took it to a whole new level,? Whitmer said.

This is like saying Jody Foster and Holden Caufield were responsible for the assassination attempt on president Reagan.

As far as ?taking ?it? to a ?whole-new? level,?? what these idiots were planning pales in comparison to what the alphabet soup of government agencies have perpetrated in my lifetime.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well Trump is not Henry II and Whitmer is not Thomas Becket.

Sure, but "stand back and stand by" is his idea of condemning a violent group?


It's not hard to find lists of Trump quotes in support of violence.


"The audience hit back. That's what we need a little bit more of."
"In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough."
"Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"Knock the crap out of them."
"Maybe he should have been roughed up."
"I don?t know if I?ll do the fighting myself or if other people will."
"Maybe he should have been roughed up."

https://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why not reveal it initially? That?s the question. To gain additional sympathy and support, I expect.

But why now? So she can go on CNN and blast the Trump administration, it appears.

?Of course, we know every time that this White House identifies me or takes a shot at me, we see an increase in rhetoric online, of violent rhetoric, and so there?s always a connection and certainly, it?s something we?ve been watching but this took it to a whole new level,? Whitmer said.

This is like saying Jody Foster and Holden Caufield were responsible for the assassination attempt on president Reagan.

As far as ?taking ?it? to a ?whole-new? level,?? what these idiots were planning pales in comparison to what the alphabet soup of government agencies have perpetrated in my lifetime.

I'm not seeing it. I doubt there's much difference in how much sympathy she'd get or what value there was to that sympathy. Of all the sinister political plots this is a tiny, tiny molehill.

 

[tinselwolverine]

If there's some big political benefit to pretending that she didn't know yesterday, then why admit she knows today? What's the sinister plot behind withholding that information for only 24 hours?

In the link that byco posted it says she first told Erin Burnett, I guess on the air.

My guess is somebody informed the governor that Burnett had a source that was claiming Gretsch had Known what was going on and Erin was going to ask her during the interview.

So she knew the jig was up.

 

[Gulo Blue]

In the link that byco posted it says she first told Erin Burnett, I guess on the air.

My guess is somebody informed the governor that Burnett had a source that was claiming Gretsch had Known what was going on and Erin was going to ask her during the interview.

So she knew the jig was up.

Even if she wanted to keep it secret and got caught, I'm not seeing the big political upside to her being perceived as in or out of the loop anyway.


But really, even looking at your guess of how this unfolded, I don't see why it would be a scoop for Erin Burnett that people would be talking about behind the scenes anyway.

 

[byco42]

Sure, but "stand back and stand by" is his idea of condemning a violent group?


It's not hard to find lists of Trump quotes in support of violence.


"The audience hit back. That's what we need a little bit more of."
"In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough."
"Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"Knock the crap out of them."
"Maybe he should have been roughed up."
"I don?t know if I?ll do the fighting myself or if other people will."
"Maybe he should have been roughed up."

https://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/

Maybe this OPED will be considered as a rebuttal.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Maybe this OPED will be considered as a rebuttal.

It's a poor rebuttal. I saw the debate so I was aware of the "sure".


If someone asks if I will apologize and I say "Sure, I'm sorry you're offended" and someone says "I'm sorry you're offended" is my idea of an apology, references to better past apologies I had made in the past would not refute the fact that I had tried to use "I'm sorry you're offended" as an apology.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Even if she wanted to keep it secret and got caught, I'm not seeing the big political upside to her being perceived as in or out of the loop anyway.

Me neither.

In her response to Erin Burnett, she tries to tie the group to having been inspired by Trump.

She is one of Biden?s co-chairs.

My guess is she was just keeping her powder dry, looking for the best angle to link the guys to Trump. She was waiting for the right time to play the Trump card.

 

[byco42]

I'm not seeing it. I doubt there's much difference in how much sympathy she'd get or what value there was to that sympathy. Of all the sinister political plots this is a tiny, tiny molehill.

You keep rehashing the word ?sinister? as I potentially described as part of her persona and never as the actual plan to deceive, were it true that she was deliberately withholding prior knowledge of the kidnapping plot. Which she did in her initial statement. I want to know why.

I stand by that, because it is a deliberate deception with design and intent to deceive for personal benefit.

Omitting that she DID know, was, in my opinion, purposeful and planned. Exacerbating potential danger when the perpetrators? every move and actual words were known by the FBI in virtual real time renders the plot largely benign.

Also, I find it rather interesting that the affidavit in no way at all implicates motive as having any relationship to president Trump. There are lots of direct quotes in the affidavit. None to that effect. You?d think that would be on page one if that was the case.

 

[byco42]

It's a poor rebuttal. I saw the debate so I was aware of the "sure".


If someone asks if I will apologize and I say "Sure, I'm sorry you're offended" and someone says "I'm sorry you're offended" is my idea of an apology, references to better past apologies I had made in the past would not refute the fact that I had tried to use "I'm sorry you're offended" as an apology.

I wonder if you read the entire OPED.

 

[Michchamp]

Typically, when there's a covert criminal investigation going on, especially one that's being conducted using a confidential police informant, no one is supposed to make a public statement until arrests are made.

I mean... that's just common sense, right?

Where is all this outrage over the use of provacateurs and confidential informants when they use them to shutdown lawful, Constitutionally-protected public protests?

Isn't that more of an issue? If anything this seems like a case where police use of these tactics was entirely justified. I mean... kidnapping anyone, let alone a sitting state governor, is illegal, and way outside any Constitutionally protected activity.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I wonder if you read the entire OPED.

Why?


That's the point of 'will anyone rid me of this meddlesome monk'. It's a dog whistle. You don't actually say the thing.

 

[tinselwolverine]

You keep rehashing the word ?sinister? as I potentially described as part of her persona and never as the actual plan to deceive, were it true that she was deliberately withholding prior knowledge of the kidnapping plot. Which she did in her initial statement. I want to know why.

I stand by that, because it is a deliberate deception with design and intent to deceive for personal benefit.

Omitting that she DID know, was, in my opinion, purposeful and planned. Exacerbating potential danger when the perpetrators? every move and actual words were known by the FBI in virtual real time renders the plot largely benign.

Also, I find it rather interesting that the affidavit in no way at all implicates motive as having any relationship to president Trump. There are lots of direct quotes in the affidavit. None to that effect. You?d think that would be on page one if that was the case.

Like I said in #35, above your post I?m quoting, she was waiting for the best angle to link this situation to Trump.