FBI And DHS Ignored 'Massive Amount' Of Intelligence Before Jan. 6, Senate Says

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

I went with the Oxford dictionary. And even by at least one of the definitions you presented, sedition is the conduct or language inciting rebellion. In my explanation I said the same. And to be clear, there is a difference between calling for rebellion and rebelling itself.

Sedition: N. The speaking or writing of words that are likely to incite ordinary people to public disorder or insurrection.

Insurrection: N. A situation in which a large group of people try to take political control of their own country with violence.

Sedition can also mean the interference with government duties.

And did you not read what I wrote regarding Lincoln and Congress declaring that the secession of the Confederacy and its fighting Union forces was an insurrection. Whereas people who argued for secession were accused of sedition.

Seems purdee clear to me that there is a difference between the two terms.

Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, “seditious conspiracy” occurs when two or more persons:

conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

Individuals charged with seditious conspiracy can be fined and could serve up to 20 years in prison.

It is important to consider that federal law refers to “seditious conspiracy” as opposed to just “sedition.” There is the added burden of proof that an individual must actively be conspiring and taking steps toward a violent action against the government, not just making comments that seem to merely reflect that desire.

Insurrection is captured by 18 U.S.C. § 2383 and applies to “[w]hoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the law there, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Charges of insurrection, or the incitement of insurrection, involves fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years. Individuals charged with insurrection are also ineligible to hold public office in the United States.

The Jan. 6 rioters weren't trying to take over the government by an extended insurrection, but rather "by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof".

Seems the legal definition of the two terms in US law are pertinent to the question.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

You have too much time on your hands, my friend.

This whole 'I didn't accuse rioters or Trump of insurrection for their seditious riot'. It means the same thing.

FFS, let it go.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

You have too much time on your hands, my friend.

This whole 'I didn't accuse rioters or Trump of insurrection for their seditious riot'. It means the same thing.

FFS, let it go.

Words have meanings, and I made it clear the difference between the two. I did notice you didn't actually address the specifics of my post, and try to refute it.

You seem to be the one who doesn't want to acknowledge that there is a distinction between these two terms, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead and respond one last time to me on the subject, so you can get the last word in.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Yes, and I clipped the dictionary for you two see that insurrection is contained in nearly every definition.

Dictionaries, not essays nor opinions are the standards for meanings of words.

LET IT GO

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
The first congressional report focusing on intelligence failures by specifically the FBI and DHS, which occurred in the days leading up to, and even on the day of the Jan. 6 capitol riot has been released. There appears to be a great deal of information that was ignored or downplayed, and this continued onto the day of the riot when there was already news reporting and video coverage of the violence, yet the FBI and DHS took no action nor called in any other government agencies, including police departments, to help bring the situation under control and to protect the congress and its staff in the capitol building. The FBI was receiving tips directly from Parler, one of the social media platforms favored by Trump supporters, but did not act on the information.

The new Senate report details how the agencies failed to recognize and warn of the potential for violence ahead of the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Link

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security downplayed or ignored “a massive amount of intelligence information” ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S Capitol, according to the chairman of a Senate panel that on Tuesday released a new report on the intelligence failures ahead of the insurrection.

The report details how the agencies failed to recognize and warn of the potential for violence as some of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters openly planned the siege in messages and forums online.

Among the multitude of intelligence that was overlooked was a December 2020 tip to the FBI that members of the far-right extremist group Proud Boys planned to be in Washington, D.C., for the certification of Joe Biden’s victory and their “plan is to literally kill people,” the report said. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said the agencies were also aware of many social media posts that foreshadowed violence, some calling on Trump’s supporters to “come armed” and storm the Capitol, kill lawmakers or “burn the place to the ground.”

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the Democratic chairman of the Homeland panel, said the breakdown was “largely a failure of imagination to see threats that the Capitol could be breached as credible,” echoing the findings of the Sept. 11 commission about intelligence failures ahead of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The report by the panel’s majority staff says the intelligence community has not entirely recalibrated to focus on the threats of domestic, rather than international, terrorism. And government intelligence leaders failed to sound the alarm “in part because they could not conceive that the U.S. Capitol Building would be overrun by rioters.”

Still, Peters said, the reasons for dismissing what he called a “massive” amount of intelligence “defies an easy explanation.”

While several other reports have examined the intelligence failures around Jan. 6 ― including a bipartisan 2021 Senate report, the House Jan. 6 committee last year and several separate internal assessments by the Capitol Police and other government agencies — the latest investigation is the first congressional report to focus solely on the actions of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

The inaction of these agencies indeed "defies an easy explanation.” Although the report does not suggest it outright, it sure seems suspect that these agencies in particular sounded no alarm to the local law enforcement agencies or to the National Guard. One explanation by Trump officials was that they didn't want to be accused of overreacting as they had during the DC George Floyd demonstrations. The difference was that the George Floyd protests were peaceful. Yes, there had been arson and other violence over that Memorial Day weekend, but when the crackdown occurred, the protests were all peaceful, as was reported by many news outlets and which included video footage.

Even as the attack was happening, the new report found, the FBI and Homeland Security downplayed the threat. As the Capitol Police struggled to clear the building, Homeland Security “was still struggling to assess the credibility of threats against the Capitol and to report out its intelligence.”

And at a 10 a.m. briefing as protesters gathered at Trump’s speech and near the Capitol were “wearing ballistic helmets, body armor, carrying radio equipment and military grade backpacks,” the FBI briefed that there were “no credible threats at this time.”

The lack of sufficient warnings meant that law enforcement were not adequately prepared and there was not a hardened perimeter established around the Capitol, as there is during events like the annual State of the Union address.

The report contains dozens of tips about violence on Jan. 6 that the agencies received and dismissed either due to lack of coordination, bureaucratic delays or trepidation on the part of those who were collecting it. The FBI, for example, was unexpectedly hindered in its attempt to find social media posts planning for Jan. 6 protests when the contract for its third-party social media monitoring tool expired. At Homeland Security, analysts were hesitant to report open-source intelligence after criticism in 2020 for collecting intelligence on American citizens during racial justice demonstrations.

One tip received by the FBI ahead of the Jan. 6 attack was from a former Justice Department official who sent screenshots of online posts from members of the Oath Keepers extremist group: “There is only one way in. It is not signs. It’s not rallies. It’s f――― bullets!”

”(T)his is not a rally and it’s no longer a protest,” read one of the Parler posts sent to the FBI, according to the report. “This is a final stand where we are drawing the red line at Capitol Hill. (...) don’t be surprised if we take the #capital (sic) building.”

It seems a lot of excuses given are the same as the ones given post 9/11. However, I would argue that the intelligence failures associated with 9/11 were due to negligence and incompetence, whereas some component of the failures for 1/6 could very well have been due to the political agenda of some agents and officials in the FBI and DHS. This report doesn't even go into the matter of how the Secret Service had all their agents purge their cell phone text message records from Jan 5 and 6, and very soon after Jan. 6 updated there system, and purging their archives of these texts. Just a little bit too convenient.

Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021 – after oversight officials asked for them, watchdog says

Trump supporters like to talk about the deep state that was after Trump. It appears there was indeed a deep state element, but it was running interference for Trump in the days leading up to, and the day of the capitol riot.

July 12, 2023

Today FBI Director Christopher Wray was asked several questions about the Jan 6th protests, and also about the suspicious person who "found" one of the Jan 5, 2021 pipe bombs.

Wray was remarkably uninformed! We here on ATS know more than the Director of the FBI about events on, and before 1/6/2021. WATCH...

Oversight Committee met today...

a reply to: FlyingFox

"TRUST WRAY" -Q