Thanks for the article, Kurt. Interesting read. The piece notes the defense lawyers' claim that the FBI informant “pushed this ‘kidnapping plan’ from the beginning, doing so against defendants who explicitly repudiated the plan,” which is big, if true.
The article says the FBI informant talked to Fox a lot, drove him around, and offered him a prepaid card so he could buy guns. To my mind, these things make the crime possible and the material available, as opposed to originating the idea or inducing someone to commit the crime. A string operation as opposed to entrapment.
The article says another informant built a “kill house” for the men to practice shooting and allegedly suggested the exercises could be used to “storm” a state Capitol building or governor’s residence. Again, making the material available and the crime possible would be a sting, but if he did originate the criminal design, then that is entrapment, I agree with you.
On the other hand, the article is based on the BuzzFeed report, and they write that one of the guys, Bellar, was “getting amped,” while another, Musico, wanted to circle the building and wait for Whitmer to “catch that bitch as she came out the emergency exit.” Sounds to me like willing and eager players. Bellar got 7 to 20 and Musico got 12 to 20.
The way I see it is Fox was unemployed, broke, with no car, living the the strip mall basement of a vacuum repair shop where he smoked weed and drank. Sure he was mad. Other defendants called him ’Captain Autism’ due to his forgetfulness. He seems pitiful. But instead, are we to believe that, in reality, he was a terrorist mastermind arch villain, hellbent on murdering governors? Not so fast.
The FBI paid informants good money to associate with him, got them cars to drive Fox around to meetings, coached the informants in real time, offered Fox thousands of dollars on multiple occasions--which he refused--created a new group, the “Three Percent Patriot Militia,” installed Fox as the Head of the Michigan chalter, and rallied the group when it was about to disband.
Granted I don’t know much more about this case or domestic terrorism in general. But this case strikes me as a total set up.
Could it be that a vulnerable man with hard luck was manipulated by a dozen well-paid informants and undercover agents to persue opportunities that they created just for him?
It seems to me, without the FBI’s involvement, Fox would still be stoned in his basement and nothing else would have happened.
One thing to keep in mind is that his pitiful circumstances actually do fit the pattern for many young men who self-radicalize. On the other hand, based on your argument and the article, I have updated my position from "No way" to "Maybe." I say "maybe" because I still see nothing to suggest they induced him. It still sounds like a sting operation to me. But to the degree that the FBI originated the idea, or aspects of the idea, then you might have an entrapment claim. Yes, perhaps he would still be getting stoned in his basement. But that's the nature of any sting operation, is it not? If a cop pretends to be a young girl online to snag pedophiles, or goes undercover as a drug dealer, the defendant can always claim they would have gone about their life without breaking the law if not for the officer. But so long as the officer does not originate the idea or induce the defendant to commit the crime, that's not a defense in this country. It does sound like the FBI may have originated at least parts of this plan, which I did not know before, but then my immediate question would be, since the defense lawyers made exactly this case, why didn't they succeed? Was it a kangaroo court or, what I think is more likely, did they simply not have sufficient evidence for the claim? The article doesn't answer this question. So I guess for now I would say, yes, based on this report, it seems like the FBI might have committed entrapment, but it also seems like the evidence to support the claim is lacking.
David, your open mind is a rare and wonderful strength in this age of reflexive tribal gotcha smackdowns. Your thoughtful respect for alternative views is like a breath of fresh air in the fever swamps of comment sections.
I think the first trial resulted in two aquittals and two non decisions prompting retrials. That’s no convictions for a very elaborate operation.
Judges can decide to exclude exculpitory evidence. Look at what’s happening to unarmed, nonviolent J6 defendants with zero criminal history.
Thank you, Kurt. To be fair, I'm not always so flexible, and I am also a former university lecturer of logic and debate. I happen to think that unless one has practice or some type of training, then it's unlikely most folks will be able to think through their reflexive reactions, which is why it's so hard to overcome views that have been deeply reinforced by confirmation bias via social media. I'm just happy that having this newsletter puts me in a position where my views can be challenged, and subsequently updated. So thanks for that.
David, the Gretchen Whitmer case was referred to as a legitimate investigation of insurrection/ white supremacy, whatever you want to call it. It was a fraud, a travesty of justice, a sham. It was government entrapment pure and simple. And these two never touch on the over reach of government, the efforts to “manufacture” this activity and the criminalization of dissent.
To hear them bash social media news efforts for lacking the journalistic ethics of the MainStream corporate news outlets now that corporate news has totally jettisoned those standards was absolutley laughable.
These guys are big brother’s enforcers and you gave them a pass. Not good.
Kurt, I disagree that the Gretchen Whitmer case was a fraud. In October 2020, the FBI arrested 13 men suspected of orchestrating a domestic terror plot to kidnap Michigan governor Whitmer and overthrow the state government. Half the suspects were tied to the paramilitary militia the Wolverine Watchmen, seven were charged with state crimes, six were charged in federal court, four pleaded guilty, Adam Fox got 16 years, Joseph Morrison got 10 to 20, Barry Croft got 19, Pete Musico got 12 to 20, Paul Bellar got 7 to 20, and five were found not guilty.
Court documents show that in addition to storming the Capitol, they had plans to lock people inside the building and burn it down, killing everyone inside, as well as plans to televise the execution of hostages. Fox was literally recorded saying, "Grab the fucking Governor. Just grab the bitch." He also talked to group members about simply knocking on Whitmer's door and shooting her in the face when she answered. That is also on tape. In addition, they bought equipment, made plans, cased Whitmer's house, took photos of the property, spent $4,000 on night-vision goggles, designated a team to detonate a nearby bridge to slow police response, photographed the bridge in detail, designated a team to monitor for any followers, conducted several training exercises, bought an 800,000-volt taser, and paid $4,000 to acquire the explosives to take out the bridge. There is even more evidence than I have listed here, but suffice it to say, these motherfuckers were dead serious.
The entrapment argument which, by the way, was thrown out by a county judge, was bullshit. The defense lawyer claimed entrapment because an FBI agent paid informants and because an FBI agent directed an informant to take on a leadership role in some of the trainings. But that is not what entrapment means or has ever meant.
Entrapment is when law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime. But in this case, by the time law enforcement found out about the plot, it already existed. Croft and Fox originated the plot. The conspirators who were found guilty all joined voluntarily. THEN the FBI got involved. More importantly, look at the specific charges. Conspiracy to commit kidnapping, material aid, providing material support for terrorist acts, etc. The FBI informant did not induce any of the men to do any of these things.
Also, you know that I will not argue with you if you want to complain about the ethics of corporate news outlets. Brother, we definitely agree there. But that is not to say that corporate news "has totally jettisoned those standards." Pick any corporate outlet, and we could probably write a book on its misdeeds but we could also probably write a book on its journalistic achievements. There are many incredible journalists, including friends of mine, at places such as the New York Times and WaPo. It is simply false, because it is too great a generalization, to argue that the Seattle Times has zero good reporters. The problem at the Seattle Times and other outlets is not that they have no good reporters but that their leadership decisions are stupid, misguided, or downright immoral. The real rot is in the C Suite, not the newsroom. (But yes, there are, of course, shitty reporters too.)
Point being, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The New York Times still does amazing work. And shit work. Corporate media still puts out good journalism. And shit journalism. You have to take it piece-by-piece. You can no longer pick up the Times, if you ever could, and read the whole paper and trust everything you see. But you can trust individual reporters. And you can trust individual bureau chiefs. To give an example, WaPo may be awful at covering Covid but it has a rather excellent bureau for covering Korean affairs, including two friends of mine, one of whom was my former editor when I covered North Korea for NK News, which is the best outlet in the world for news and analysis on the DPRK. I also read El Pais (in Spanish) and they are generally decent.
Granted, sifting through the chaff to find the wheat takes time. It takes time to get to know bureaus and reporters that you can trust, and most folks don't have that kinda time and would rather get their news from wires and their analysis from independent journalists like myself. I do this as well, so I'm not criticizing the approach. I'm simply saying that no corporate outlet is a simplistic monolith, and certainly not corporate media as a whole. Name an outlet and I can probably find you a great piece of journalistic work that they did in the last few weeks. But yes, overall, it has become so messy and corrupt that I understand why many people are simply done. As I recently wrote in my post "The Death of the Newspaper," the outlets did it to themselves and I am sad to see them fading away, but I have come to doubt whether they can ever be saved. That said, personally, I will take good reporting anywhere I can find it.
This brings us to social media. Hoffman and Ware are absolutely right that we need some kind of social media reform. If we are going to be critical of corporate media, should we be any less critical of corporate social media?
Given the word for the Jan 6th riot used here is "insurrection" now I want to know his definition of "murder" (convicted of murder? any killing in self-defense?) and "white supremacist." (gosh I wish that was obvious but given how many ordinary people I know - including BLACK PEOPLE - being called "white supremacists" now I have to ask. )
Interesting that 75% of politically motivated murders are committed by the extreme-right. I only know of one politically motivated murder that hit close to home, and the victim was falsely accused of being extreme-right, and the murderer was extreme-left. I wonder how that incident gets recorded.
I'm curious what the numbers show when we look at physical violence like stabbing, hitting with bricks, knocking out teeth and burning down buildings?
And how do they determine the political motivations of the murderer? For instance, the far-left is committing violence against Jewish Americans every day. If they murder one, is that going to be categorized as "far right" just given the assumptions regarding antisemitism?
Spider, I agree that definitions do matter. But the definition of "insurrection" is a violent uprising against an established government, so follow me for a moment.
Was it violent? The rioters smashed windows, broke doors, there were 9 deaths attributed to the attack, an untold number of injuries among the rioters, including at least five hospitalizations, not to mention 174 injured police officers, 15 of whom had to be hospitalized, offices were ransacked, vandalized, and $30 million in repairs resulted. Pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails were later discovered at DNC and RNC headquarters and in a nearby vehicle. So yes, it was violent.
Was it directed against established government? They broke into and vandalized the United States Capitol, the very seat of Congress itself. They erected a gallows outside and chanted that they wanted to hang the vice president of the United States. They delayed the counting of electoral votes to prevent the democratic transfer of power.
Can you help me understand in what way you think this was not an insurrection?
I agree that it was violent yes, the way the aftermath of a sports event is violent. There have been more deaths and injuries at rock concerts- and similarly those deaths were accidental. No INTENTIONAL deaths occurred. No firearms were used - except the one used by a cop to kill a protestor.
Was there an INTENTION to HARM OTHERS to take over the government?
It was a rowdy crowd, and with a failure of security (I agree with Shellenberger's view on this), with the intention of... demanding a recount of votes.
I think it was terribly stupid and no, I don't think anyone there was doing the right thing. But that's different from an insurrection.
Do you consider the violence of the 2020 summer riots - including those that attacked state capital buildings and federal buildings to be insurrections?
On Nov. 9, 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, held a meeting in which he detailed a plan to violently stop the lawful transfer of presidential power.
On Dec. 30, Proud Boys leaders circulated a document calling on supporters to "Storm the Winter Palace," a reference to the overthrow of the Tsarist government of Russia in 1917. They also talked about "taking the Capitol."
As I noted above, an insurrection is a violent uprising against a government. But if you plan to violently seize power from the government, such as by seizing the power of presidential transfer or overthrowing the government like the Bolsheviks did, that is not an insurrection. That is a coup attempt.
I wonder what ever happened to the records of bombings carried out by Weather Underground and other Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups in the 1960’s and 1970’s, often in opposition to the war in Vietnam but also in response to FBI surveillance of leftists. How about the accelerationist tactics of Antifa and BLM? No need to mention them? I don’t support ANY far-right groups, but to farm out research on far right activities to ADL is a bad idea for their bias. Play fair, David.
I assume that one measure of Right Wing extremism is reflected in hate crimes. Not referring to acts against the government. Seems to me that this biases the actual numbers. Our recent history and current state of affairs makes it very incorrect to accuse minorities of hate crimes against whites.
David, wow, you write fast.
I agree with most of your points, except for the entrapment.
Julie Kelly has been doing great investigative work. Please read this current update. These facts read like entrapment to me.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/01/03/the_fbi-tainted_whitmer_kidnap_plot_youve_heard_next_to_nothing_about_1001971.html
Thanks for the article, Kurt. Interesting read. The piece notes the defense lawyers' claim that the FBI informant “pushed this ‘kidnapping plan’ from the beginning, doing so against defendants who explicitly repudiated the plan,” which is big, if true.
The article says the FBI informant talked to Fox a lot, drove him around, and offered him a prepaid card so he could buy guns. To my mind, these things make the crime possible and the material available, as opposed to originating the idea or inducing someone to commit the crime. A string operation as opposed to entrapment.
The article says another informant built a “kill house” for the men to practice shooting and allegedly suggested the exercises could be used to “storm” a state Capitol building or governor’s residence. Again, making the material available and the crime possible would be a sting, but if he did originate the criminal design, then that is entrapment, I agree with you.
On the other hand, the article is based on the BuzzFeed report, and they write that one of the guys, Bellar, was “getting amped,” while another, Musico, wanted to circle the building and wait for Whitmer to “catch that bitch as she came out the emergency exit.” Sounds to me like willing and eager players. Bellar got 7 to 20 and Musico got 12 to 20.
David, thanks for reading the piece.
The way I see it is Fox was unemployed, broke, with no car, living the the strip mall basement of a vacuum repair shop where he smoked weed and drank. Sure he was mad. Other defendants called him ’Captain Autism’ due to his forgetfulness. He seems pitiful. But instead, are we to believe that, in reality, he was a terrorist mastermind arch villain, hellbent on murdering governors? Not so fast.
The FBI paid informants good money to associate with him, got them cars to drive Fox around to meetings, coached the informants in real time, offered Fox thousands of dollars on multiple occasions--which he refused--created a new group, the “Three Percent Patriot Militia,” installed Fox as the Head of the Michigan chalter, and rallied the group when it was about to disband.
Granted I don’t know much more about this case or domestic terrorism in general. But this case strikes me as a total set up.
Could it be that a vulnerable man with hard luck was manipulated by a dozen well-paid informants and undercover agents to persue opportunities that they created just for him?
It seems to me, without the FBI’s involvement, Fox would still be stoned in his basement and nothing else would have happened.
One thing to keep in mind is that his pitiful circumstances actually do fit the pattern for many young men who self-radicalize. On the other hand, based on your argument and the article, I have updated my position from "No way" to "Maybe." I say "maybe" because I still see nothing to suggest they induced him. It still sounds like a sting operation to me. But to the degree that the FBI originated the idea, or aspects of the idea, then you might have an entrapment claim. Yes, perhaps he would still be getting stoned in his basement. But that's the nature of any sting operation, is it not? If a cop pretends to be a young girl online to snag pedophiles, or goes undercover as a drug dealer, the defendant can always claim they would have gone about their life without breaking the law if not for the officer. But so long as the officer does not originate the idea or induce the defendant to commit the crime, that's not a defense in this country. It does sound like the FBI may have originated at least parts of this plan, which I did not know before, but then my immediate question would be, since the defense lawyers made exactly this case, why didn't they succeed? Was it a kangaroo court or, what I think is more likely, did they simply not have sufficient evidence for the claim? The article doesn't answer this question. So I guess for now I would say, yes, based on this report, it seems like the FBI might have committed entrapment, but it also seems like the evidence to support the claim is lacking.
David, your open mind is a rare and wonderful strength in this age of reflexive tribal gotcha smackdowns. Your thoughtful respect for alternative views is like a breath of fresh air in the fever swamps of comment sections.
I think the first trial resulted in two aquittals and two non decisions prompting retrials. That’s no convictions for a very elaborate operation.
Judges can decide to exclude exculpitory evidence. Look at what’s happening to unarmed, nonviolent J6 defendants with zero criminal history.
Thank you, Kurt. To be fair, I'm not always so flexible, and I am also a former university lecturer of logic and debate. I happen to think that unless one has practice or some type of training, then it's unlikely most folks will be able to think through their reflexive reactions, which is why it's so hard to overcome views that have been deeply reinforced by confirmation bias via social media. I'm just happy that having this newsletter puts me in a position where my views can be challenged, and subsequently updated. So thanks for that.
David, the Gretchen Whitmer case was referred to as a legitimate investigation of insurrection/ white supremacy, whatever you want to call it. It was a fraud, a travesty of justice, a sham. It was government entrapment pure and simple. And these two never touch on the over reach of government, the efforts to “manufacture” this activity and the criminalization of dissent.
To hear them bash social media news efforts for lacking the journalistic ethics of the MainStream corporate news outlets now that corporate news has totally jettisoned those standards was absolutley laughable.
These guys are big brother’s enforcers and you gave them a pass. Not good.
Kurt, I disagree that the Gretchen Whitmer case was a fraud. In October 2020, the FBI arrested 13 men suspected of orchestrating a domestic terror plot to kidnap Michigan governor Whitmer and overthrow the state government. Half the suspects were tied to the paramilitary militia the Wolverine Watchmen, seven were charged with state crimes, six were charged in federal court, four pleaded guilty, Adam Fox got 16 years, Joseph Morrison got 10 to 20, Barry Croft got 19, Pete Musico got 12 to 20, Paul Bellar got 7 to 20, and five were found not guilty.
Court documents show that in addition to storming the Capitol, they had plans to lock people inside the building and burn it down, killing everyone inside, as well as plans to televise the execution of hostages. Fox was literally recorded saying, "Grab the fucking Governor. Just grab the bitch." He also talked to group members about simply knocking on Whitmer's door and shooting her in the face when she answered. That is also on tape. In addition, they bought equipment, made plans, cased Whitmer's house, took photos of the property, spent $4,000 on night-vision goggles, designated a team to detonate a nearby bridge to slow police response, photographed the bridge in detail, designated a team to monitor for any followers, conducted several training exercises, bought an 800,000-volt taser, and paid $4,000 to acquire the explosives to take out the bridge. There is even more evidence than I have listed here, but suffice it to say, these motherfuckers were dead serious.
The entrapment argument which, by the way, was thrown out by a county judge, was bullshit. The defense lawyer claimed entrapment because an FBI agent paid informants and because an FBI agent directed an informant to take on a leadership role in some of the trainings. But that is not what entrapment means or has ever meant.
Entrapment is when law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime. But in this case, by the time law enforcement found out about the plot, it already existed. Croft and Fox originated the plot. The conspirators who were found guilty all joined voluntarily. THEN the FBI got involved. More importantly, look at the specific charges. Conspiracy to commit kidnapping, material aid, providing material support for terrorist acts, etc. The FBI informant did not induce any of the men to do any of these things.
Also, you know that I will not argue with you if you want to complain about the ethics of corporate news outlets. Brother, we definitely agree there. But that is not to say that corporate news "has totally jettisoned those standards." Pick any corporate outlet, and we could probably write a book on its misdeeds but we could also probably write a book on its journalistic achievements. There are many incredible journalists, including friends of mine, at places such as the New York Times and WaPo. It is simply false, because it is too great a generalization, to argue that the Seattle Times has zero good reporters. The problem at the Seattle Times and other outlets is not that they have no good reporters but that their leadership decisions are stupid, misguided, or downright immoral. The real rot is in the C Suite, not the newsroom. (But yes, there are, of course, shitty reporters too.)
Point being, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The New York Times still does amazing work. And shit work. Corporate media still puts out good journalism. And shit journalism. You have to take it piece-by-piece. You can no longer pick up the Times, if you ever could, and read the whole paper and trust everything you see. But you can trust individual reporters. And you can trust individual bureau chiefs. To give an example, WaPo may be awful at covering Covid but it has a rather excellent bureau for covering Korean affairs, including two friends of mine, one of whom was my former editor when I covered North Korea for NK News, which is the best outlet in the world for news and analysis on the DPRK. I also read El Pais (in Spanish) and they are generally decent.
Granted, sifting through the chaff to find the wheat takes time. It takes time to get to know bureaus and reporters that you can trust, and most folks don't have that kinda time and would rather get their news from wires and their analysis from independent journalists like myself. I do this as well, so I'm not criticizing the approach. I'm simply saying that no corporate outlet is a simplistic monolith, and certainly not corporate media as a whole. Name an outlet and I can probably find you a great piece of journalistic work that they did in the last few weeks. But yes, overall, it has become so messy and corrupt that I understand why many people are simply done. As I recently wrote in my post "The Death of the Newspaper," the outlets did it to themselves and I am sad to see them fading away, but I have come to doubt whether they can ever be saved. That said, personally, I will take good reporting anywhere I can find it.
This brings us to social media. Hoffman and Ware are absolutely right that we need some kind of social media reform. If we are going to be critical of corporate media, should we be any less critical of corporate social media?
So many questions.
Given the word for the Jan 6th riot used here is "insurrection" now I want to know his definition of "murder" (convicted of murder? any killing in self-defense?) and "white supremacist." (gosh I wish that was obvious but given how many ordinary people I know - including BLACK PEOPLE - being called "white supremacists" now I have to ask. )
Interesting that 75% of politically motivated murders are committed by the extreme-right. I only know of one politically motivated murder that hit close to home, and the victim was falsely accused of being extreme-right, and the murderer was extreme-left. I wonder how that incident gets recorded.
I'm curious what the numbers show when we look at physical violence like stabbing, hitting with bricks, knocking out teeth and burning down buildings?
And how do they determine the political motivations of the murderer? For instance, the far-left is committing violence against Jewish Americans every day. If they murder one, is that going to be categorized as "far right" just given the assumptions regarding antisemitism?
Spider, I agree that definitions do matter. But the definition of "insurrection" is a violent uprising against an established government, so follow me for a moment.
Was it violent? The rioters smashed windows, broke doors, there were 9 deaths attributed to the attack, an untold number of injuries among the rioters, including at least five hospitalizations, not to mention 174 injured police officers, 15 of whom had to be hospitalized, offices were ransacked, vandalized, and $30 million in repairs resulted. Pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails were later discovered at DNC and RNC headquarters and in a nearby vehicle. So yes, it was violent.
Was it directed against established government? They broke into and vandalized the United States Capitol, the very seat of Congress itself. They erected a gallows outside and chanted that they wanted to hang the vice president of the United States. They delayed the counting of electoral votes to prevent the democratic transfer of power.
Can you help me understand in what way you think this was not an insurrection?
I agree that it was violent yes, the way the aftermath of a sports event is violent. There have been more deaths and injuries at rock concerts- and similarly those deaths were accidental. No INTENTIONAL deaths occurred. No firearms were used - except the one used by a cop to kill a protestor.
Was there an INTENTION to HARM OTHERS to take over the government?
It was a rowdy crowd, and with a failure of security (I agree with Shellenberger's view on this), with the intention of... demanding a recount of votes.
I think it was terribly stupid and no, I don't think anyone there was doing the right thing. But that's different from an insurrection.
Do you consider the violence of the 2020 summer riots - including those that attacked state capital buildings and federal buildings to be insurrections?
On Nov. 9, 2020, Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, held a meeting in which he detailed a plan to violently stop the lawful transfer of presidential power.
On Dec. 30, Proud Boys leaders circulated a document calling on supporters to "Storm the Winter Palace," a reference to the overthrow of the Tsarist government of Russia in 1917. They also talked about "taking the Capitol."
As I noted above, an insurrection is a violent uprising against a government. But if you plan to violently seize power from the government, such as by seizing the power of presidential transfer or overthrowing the government like the Bolsheviks did, that is not an insurrection. That is a coup attempt.
I wonder what ever happened to the records of bombings carried out by Weather Underground and other Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups in the 1960’s and 1970’s, often in opposition to the war in Vietnam but also in response to FBI surveillance of leftists. How about the accelerationist tactics of Antifa and BLM? No need to mention them? I don’t support ANY far-right groups, but to farm out research on far right activities to ADL is a bad idea for their bias. Play fair, David.
I assume that one measure of Right Wing extremism is reflected in hate crimes. Not referring to acts against the government. Seems to me that this biases the actual numbers. Our recent history and current state of affairs makes it very incorrect to accuse minorities of hate crimes against whites.
Well said.