I spent way too long down the Ray Epps rabbit hole and I want to spare you the pain. Epps is a 62 year-old man who was at the J6 Capitol riot and was one of the first people the FBI sought information on. He appeared in scores of videos from that day and the night before
"Letting the prosecutors know I was aware of pharmacist’s disparate treatment was likely instrumental in getting my guy a misdemeanor plea offer as well."
This sounds kinda like you 'blackmailed' the prosecution - "Give my guy a misdemeanor or I let everyone know that the pharmacist is an informant".
Is that what happened or do I misunderstand? If that's what happened, is that normal practice?
Thanks for delving into this so we don't have to. That's as much attention as I care to give this matter.
I do have one side question. You call this circular reasoning:
> "Epps was treated leniently because he was a fed, and we know he's a fed because he was treated leniently."
I honestly don't see that as circular. Before sentencing, the suspicious say "we think he may be an informant, in which case he won't be charged as stringently". After sentencing, they say "as we predicted if he were an informant, he was indeed treated leniently, which supports our suspicions".
I don't see what's circular about that. If being an informant is correlated with lenient treatment, then lenient treatment would be correlated with being an informant. Bidirectional association or correlation is common (indeed typical) and is not circular reasoning. What am I missing?
TO BE CLEAR, I'm not questioning your conclusions about Ray Epps (whom I had not paid any attention to, and will not), I'm just zooming in on the logic of that small fragment (which was not critical to your conclusion anyway).
This dynamic pretty much tracks with the Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories which are popular on the left, primarily. People didn’t want to believe a communist/left-wing fellow traveler had done it, so they invented a conspiracy that their domestic political enemies were responsible. And that theory is still going strong 60-odd years later, so there’s that to look forward to.
"Letting the prosecutors know I was aware of pharmacist’s disparate treatment was likely instrumental in getting my guy a misdemeanor plea offer as well."
This sounds kinda like you 'blackmailed' the prosecution - "Give my guy a misdemeanor or I let everyone know that the pharmacist is an informant".
Is that what happened or do I misunderstand? If that's what happened, is that normal practice?
Serious question - not shit-stirring...
> present on the grounds that ay
Typo, missing "d".
Thanks for delving into this so we don't have to. That's as much attention as I care to give this matter.
I do have one side question. You call this circular reasoning:
> "Epps was treated leniently because he was a fed, and we know he's a fed because he was treated leniently."
I honestly don't see that as circular. Before sentencing, the suspicious say "we think he may be an informant, in which case he won't be charged as stringently". After sentencing, they say "as we predicted if he were an informant, he was indeed treated leniently, which supports our suspicions".
I don't see what's circular about that. If being an informant is correlated with lenient treatment, then lenient treatment would be correlated with being an informant. Bidirectional association or correlation is common (indeed typical) and is not circular reasoning. What am I missing?
TO BE CLEAR, I'm not questioning your conclusions about Ray Epps (whom I had not paid any attention to, and will not), I'm just zooming in on the logic of that small fragment (which was not critical to your conclusion anyway).
Interesting.
Just curious, what do you think about the two defendants who got 17 and 20 years, respectively?
By comparison, their treatment seems extremely harsh compared to most defendants.
"Proud virgin Nick Fuentes" casually dropped in this article tickles me in a particular way.
I recall The Great Gretchen Whitmer Kidnap Plot ZOMG
When I heard of the arrests, the first thing I thought was "How many were FBI informants or double agents?"
The next thing I thought was "How many of these agents will develop sudden amnesia regarding their role in developing the idea in the first place?"
And 11 of the defendants walked.
This dynamic pretty much tracks with the Kennedy Assassination conspiracy theories which are popular on the left, primarily. People didn’t want to believe a communist/left-wing fellow traveler had done it, so they invented a conspiracy that their domestic political enemies were responsible. And that theory is still going strong 60-odd years later, so there’s that to look forward to.